Gujarat HC seeks response from govt on PIL challenging constitutional validity of lockdown

The Gujarat High Court on Tuesday asked the center and the state governments to respond to a public interest litigation (PIL) challenging constitutional validity of imposing lockdown following coronavirus pandemic and file a report by June 19. The petition has been filed by an activist alleging that restrictions were placed across the country without "application of mind" which led to miseries of a large section of society.

The division bench of justices R M Chhaya and Ilesh Vora ordered the government lawyers to take instruction and file a report on June 19, when the bench will be hearing set of petitions including suo motu PILs related to coronavirus pandemic and state government's actions. The fresh PIL has been filed by an activist Vishwas S Bhamburkar through advocate K R Koshti.

The petitioner has said that the lockdown was imposed by invoking Epidemic Disaster Act, 1897 and National Disaster Management Act, 2005 since March 24 in wake of rising cases of covid-19. The lockdown shut all non-essential government establishments, commercial and private establishments, industries, transport,, hospitality services, educational institutions, places of worship, political gatherings among others.

"The lockdown resulted in the people of the country being put under house arrest without being accused of any offence. It also caused untold hardships to the people of the country - food crises and hunger, migrant crises, medical crises and various other issues. It is pertinent to point out that the word lockdown, or its synonyms or equivalent does not find mention in either the EDA, DMA or the Constitution of India," the petitioner argued.

It says that before taking such decision, the government didn't provide any safeguards. "The provisions of DMA, more particularly sections 12 and 13 which ensured the welfare of the persons and protected their livelihoods (Article 21) and other reasonable interests were not invoked; therefore, the lockdown was neither imposed constitutionally nor has it been implemented legally, logically nor scientifically," the petitioner has stated.

The petition mentions that due to unplanned lockdown, livelihood of the migrant labourers was snatched away, they were rendered shelterless at their place of work, due to non-availability of transportation, they were forced to walk hundreds of kilometres away to reach home. The petition also claims that over 40 persons died on their way home.