The Punjab and Haryana high court on Saturday issued notice to the Chandigarh administration and the Centre on a plea challenging the former’s decision to relax the curfew for eight hours.
The high court bench of justice Rajiv Sharma and justice RK Jain, which took up the plea through video conferencing, sought a response by 9.30am on Sunday.
The petition was filed by a local lawyer, Adityajit Singh Chadha, challenging UT’s decision to relax the curfew between 10am and 6pm, which came into force on Saturday. The decision was taken after four days of curfew as door-to-door supply of essential commodities failed miserably.
It was argued that researches across the globe had suggested that coronavirus transmitted from one person to another and social distancing was the only way to curb its spread. The World Health Organization (WHO) had declared a global pandemic after nearly 102 years since 1918, when the Spanish flu raged across the globe, the plea said.
The court was told that the Prime Minister on March 24 announced complete lockdown in the country to limit the spread of the virus in India. However, when things were being streamlined and residents were adhering to the curfew, UT administration came out with the order in question, the court was told, adding that as per the 2011 Census, Chandigarh had 1.5 lakh households and relaxing the curfew will facilitate the spread of the deadly virus, as social distancing, the only hope, won’t be followed.
{{/usCountry}}The court was told that the Prime Minister on March 24 announced complete lockdown in the country to limit the spread of the virus in India. However, when things were being streamlined and residents were adhering to the curfew, UT administration came out with the order in question, the court was told, adding that as per the 2011 Census, Chandigarh had 1.5 lakh households and relaxing the curfew will facilitate the spread of the deadly virus, as social distancing, the only hope, won’t be followed.
{{/usCountry}}The PIL also referred to the PGIMER faculty body calling the move a “retrograde step”, and demanded that the order be quashed, and till the time a decision was not arrived at, a stay be put on its implementation.