Policy on travel on local train restriction as per Constitution: State tells HC

The affidavit states that it has done reasonable classification and imposed reasonable restrictions as per the Articles of the Constitution or non-vaccinated persons so that they do not endanger lives

Mumbai: While responding to a query of the Bombay high court (HC) on the discriminatory policy of allowing only fully vaccinated persons to use public transport like trains, the state government has stated in its affidavit that such preventive measures were necessary to ward off the likelihood of the third wave of Covid.

The HC, in the previous hearing last week had asked the state government to justify its stand on such discriminatory practices (HT File)

The affidavit states that it has done reasonable classification and imposed reasonable restrictions as per the Articles of the Constitution of India for non-vaccinated persons so that they do not endanger their own lives and of their families as well as those who are vaccinated while commuting on public transport. In light of the above, the challenge of the petitioners to the notification which restricts public transport usage by non-vaccinated persons was not valid and hence the public interest litigations should be dismissed.

The division bench of chief justice Dipankar Datta and justice Makarand Karnik while hearing the PILs filed by activists Yohan Tengra and Firoze Mithiborewala was informed that the travel restrictions through public transport for non-vaccinated persons imposed by the state government was unconstitutional and violated the rights of the citizens.

The court in the previous hearing last week had asked the state government to justify its stand on such discriminatory practices.

In response, the state filed and submitted an affidavit on Wednesday. The affidavit filed by Debashish Chakrabarty, chief secretary, the government of Maharashtra states that the claim of the petitioners of their fundamental rights being violated was not valid. The affidavit states that as per article 14 (a) the distinction between vaccinated and non-vaccinated persons was ‘reasonable classification’ as there is a rational nexus to the objective to be achieved, the objective being protection of concerned persons.

The affidavit further stated that article 19 (1) (d) of the Constitution permits ‘reasonable restriction’ in the interest of the general public. An unvaccinated person will endanger his own life and that of his family as well as others hence the notification restraining non-vaccinated persons from using any form of public transport was valid.

The affidavit also adds under article 21 the right to life and liberty was not an absolute right so as to endanger his life or the life of others by non-vaccination. The affidavit concludes that as vaccines are easily available and nearly 7.9 crore citizens have taken one dose and 4.9 crore two doses the petitioners should not raise objections on behalf of others and the PILs should be dismissed.

Another affidavit filed by the health department through Dr Sadhana Tayade, director of Health Services states that the Covid cases have reduced in the state due to vaccination and there is some evidence that vaccinated persons are less likely to transmit the same. In light of this, the affidavit stated that by not allowing usage of public transport for non-vaccinated persons is only to secure the right to life of vaccinated people.

After the petitioners informed the bench that they wanted to file responses to the affidavits, the court posted a hearing of the PIL’s to January 3.