M. IMMANVUEL Vs. GOVERNMENT OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has come forward with this writ petition seeking to quash the order bearing No.40-3/2020/DM-1(A) dated 30.05.2020 issued by the first respondent and the consequent order passed by the third respondent in G.O. Ms. No.262, Revenue and Disaster (DM-II) Department dated 31.05.2020 in so far as they relates to restriction of movement of persons, gatherings of religious, social and political in nature and night curfew as they are in violation of Article 19 (b) (d ), 21 , 25 and 14 of The Constitution of India and further excessive of the National Disaster Management Biological Disasters Guidelines, 2008 and National Disaster Management Plan, 2019.

(2.) Today, this writ petition is taken up for hearing through Video- conferencing and we have heard the counsel on either side.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is the Secretary of a registered political party in the State of Tamil Nadu by name Tamizhaga Murpokku Makkal Katchi. According to the counsel for the petitioner, the respondents imposed a Nation wide lockdown purportedly to prevent the spread of COVID-19 and such lockdown was imposed initially for 21 days from 24.03.2020, which was subsequently extended from time to time. The lockdown was lastly extended on 31.05.2020 and it is in force in the State. It is his contention that the imposition of lockdown had deprived the petitioner of his meager livelihood and made him starve even for bare essentials. It is also his contention that the lockdown imposed by the respondents had adversely affected the fundamental right of the petitioner's free movement within the State apart from infringing his political as well as religious right. The counsel for the petitioner invited our attention to the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition wherein elaborate narration has been made with respect to the restrictions imposed at the time when the lockdown was imposed in the State on 24.03.2020 and the subsequent relaxations announced and contended that the respondents are not certain as to how long the lockdown would continue. The counsel for the petitioner also states that Epidemiologists all over the world have stated that lockdown is not the solution to Covid 19 but adopting stringent preventive care such as wearing mask and maintaining social distance would be sufficient. Furthermore, inspite of the imposition of the lockdown, the number of people infected with Covid-19 has seen a surge and therefore, nothing useful could be achieved by imposing the lockdown. Above all, it is stated that the third respondent has merely followed the directions of the first and second respondents in extending the lockdown without independently taking note of the ground realities. That apart, the third respondent is said to have consulted an expert committee, but such committee does not have proper representation of the Epidemiologists, rather it consists only medical experts involved in treating patients. In essence, it is his submission that The National Disaster Management Biological Disasters Guidelines, 2008 or the National Disaster Management Plan, 2019 did not contemplate imposing lock down or restriction of movement of citizens. When the respondents have announced certain relaxations for opening transportation and other business establishments, there is no reason why the same yardstick should not be adopted in opening of places of worship etc., It is the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that the lock down imposed by the respondents had resulted in adversely affecting the temporary workers and daily wage earners. Therefore, the counsel for the petitioner would contend that the respondents have arbitrarily exercised their powers to impose a lock down and it had infringed the fundamental rights guaranteed to the petitioner under Article 19 (b) and (d ), 21 , 25 and 14 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, he prays for quashing the orders passed by the respondents referred to above.