HC unhappy over state’s decision to continue curbs on unvaxxed persons

Mumbai The Bombay high court (HC) on Wednesday expressed displeasure over the February 25 decision of the State Executive Committees (SEC) to continue restrictions on non-fully vaccinated persons and allow only fully vaccinated to travel on local trains and access other public transport, visit malls and workplaces

Mumbai The Bombay high court (HC) on Wednesday expressed displeasure over the February 25 decision of the State Executive Committees (SEC) to continue restrictions on non-fully vaccinated persons and allow only fully vaccinated to travel on local trains and access other public transport, visit malls and workplaces.

HC observed that its decision to permit the state government to take a decision on February 25 in line with its observations had not been heeded (Bhushan Koyande)

“We made a mistake and expressed hope and trust that government would take a decision,” said the division bench of chief justice Dipankar Datta and justice Makarand Karnik, after the state government informed it of its decision to continue the restrictions on non-vaccinated citizens, as regards access to public transport.

The bench referred to its previous order of February 22, in which the bench had noted state’s assurance that it was willing to withdraw three circulars issued in July and August 2021, which imposed restrictions on non-vaxxed citizens, and said, “We had observed that the state in previously issuing orders restricting travel by public transport, had imposed restrictions in a manner which had no sanction of law and that in keeping with the improving situation, it would be eminently desirable that such committee took a decision which would keep a quietus on the effect of these PILs.”

HC observed that its decision to permit the state government to take a decision on February 25 in line with its observations had not been heeded.

“Having regard to gross violations in imposing restrictions since August 10, 2021, it would have been better for us to strike down the further orders passed by the state government in the later months exercising suo moto powers. However, we had reposed hope and trust that SEC would take a decision which is reasonable and not in derogation of fundamental rights of citizens protected by article 19(1)D,” said the bench.

“Even in the DGP (Director General of Police) matter, we could have passed an order. This is the lesson that the government has given to the court,” said the CJ.

HC said that in light of its observations in the earlier order, it expected the SEC to be heedful to the fundamental rights of citizens and take a decision with regard to the restrictions accordingly. However, as the restrictions were continued, it permitted the petitioners to file fresh proceedings to challenge the new SOPs.

However, on Wednesday, senior advocate Anil Anturkar, special counsel for the State, submitted to the bench government’s fresh decision pertaining to Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) that were imposed for the general public to curb Covid.

The decision was submitted in the course of the hearing on two public interest litigations (PILs) that challenged the restrictions claiming that they were unconstitutional and discriminatory.

The government order was based on the decision of the SEC, taken at its February 25 meeting held under the chairmanship of former state chief secretary Debashish Chakrabarty.

The decision continued the restrictions on non-vaxxed persons from travelling on local trains, visiting malls and workplaces.

After perusing the decision, the bench expressed anguish over the decision. It, however, disposed of the two PILs.

“Be that as if may, since a new order has been published under the DM Act maintaining the same restrictions as before, we are of the considered opinion that petitioners if they feel aggrieved by such order ought to subject such order to challenge in fresh proceedings.”