Case BriefsCOVID 19Supreme Court

Supreme Court: The 3-judge bench of Ashik Bhushan, R. Subhash Reddy, JJ has directed full refund of air tickets booked during lockdown period i.e. from 25th March, 2020 to 24th May, 2020 for travel during lockdown period. The order of the Court came after accepted Directorate General of Civil Aviation’s (DGCA) proposal of

To contain the pandemic situation of COVID¬19, lockdown was imposed by the Government of India, from 25th March 2020 to 14th April 2020 which was later extended upto 03rd May 2020.  A ban was also imposed on operation of all domestic and international flights. There was an issue of refund of air fare during the lockdown period, when domestic and international flights’ operation was suspended. The Ministry of Civil Aviation (MoCA), while acknowledging the unusual situation that has arisen due to the lockdown imposed, to contain further spread of COVID¬19 and its consequential effect on the air passengers and airlines, by examining the grievances received from various quarters, issued an advisory to all stake holders in civil aviation sector in the shape of Office Memorandum dated 16th April 2020.

The present writ petition was filed to declare the action on the part of the respondent-airlines, operating domestic as well as international flights in India, in not refunding the full amount collected for the tickets, due to the cancellation of flights in the wake of restrictions imposed by the Government of India to contain COVID-19 as arbitrary and in violation of Civil Aviation Requirements, issued by the Directorate General of Civil Aviation. A consequential relief was sought to direct the respondents to refund the full amount upon such cancellations.

The Court noticed that in ordinary course modalities and timelines for refund on cancellation of tickets are governed by, the Civil Aviation Requirements, i.e. CAR dated 22nd May 2008; 06th August 2010 as revised on 27th February 2019, and the said Requirements are issued by the competent authority in exercise of powers under the provisions of Aircrafts Act, 1934 and the Rules made thereunder.

It, however, said that

“… we cannot lose sight of the present situation prevailing in the country and across the globe, i.e. the effect of pandemic COVID-19.  It cannot be disputed that the civil aviation sector, which is one of the important sectors, is seriously affected in view of the ban imposed for operating flights. Added to the same, air passenger traffic has come down heavily and which is gradually being restored.  At this moment any strict enforcement action of the CARs would further restrict/reduce their operations and such enforcement action may further jeopardise the possibilities of generation of cash by airlines which can further adversely affect/delay the refund cycle. “

Strict enforcement of Civil Aviation Requirements at this moment may not yield any meaningful result for any stake holder.  Hence, in view of the suggestions and formulations arrived at in the meetings held by Union of India and DGCA, which are acceptable to the majority of stake holders, the Court directed that the same have to be implemented in letter and spirit since such formulations are workable solutions in these peculiar circumstances which are prevailing in the country.

DIRECTIONS ISSUED

  1. If a passenger has booked a ticket during the lockdown period (from 25th March, 2020 to 24th May, 2020) for travel during lockdown period and the airline has received payment for booking of air ticket for travel during the same period, for both domestic and international air travel and the refund is sought by the passenger against that booking being cancelled, the airline shall refund the full amount collected without any cancellation charges. The refund shall be made within a period of three weeks from the date of cancellation.
  2. If the tickets have been booked during the lockdown period through a travel agent for a travel within the lockdown period, in all such cases full refund shall be given by the airlines immediately. On such refund, the amount shall be passed on immediately by the agent to the passengers.
  3. Passengers who booked tickets at any period of time but for travel after 24th May, 2020 – refund of fares to the passengers covered under this category shall be governed by the provisions of Civil Aviation Requirements (CAR).
  4. Even for international travel, when the tickets have been booked on an Indian carrier and the booking is ex¬India, if the tickets have been booked during the lockdown period for travel within the lockdown period, immediate refund shall be made.
  5. If the tickets are booked for international travel on a foreign carrier and the booking is ex¬India during the lockdown period for travel within the lockdown period, full refund shall be given by the airlines and said amount shall be passed on immediately by the agent to the passengers, wherever such tickets are booked through agents. In all other cases airline shall refund the collected amount to the passenger within a period of three weeks.
  6.  In all other cases, the airlines shall make all endeavours to refund the collected amount to the passenger within 15 days from today. If on account of financial distress, any airline / airlines are not able to do so, they shall provide credit shell, equal to the amount   of   fare   collected,   in   the   name   of passenger when the booking is done either directly by the passenger or through travel agent so as to consume the same on or before 31st March, 2021.  It is open to the passenger either to utilize such credit etc. shell upto 31st  March, 2021 on any route of his choice or the passenger can transfer the credit shell to any person including the travel agent through whom he/she has booked the ticket and the airlines shall honour such a transfer.

The credit shell issued in the name of the passenger shall be transferable which can be utilize upto 31st  March, 2021 and the concerned airline shall honour such a transfer by devising a mechanism to facilitate such a transfer. It is also made clear that such credit shell can be utilized by the concerned agent through whom the ticket is booked, for third party use. It is also made clear that even in cases where credit shell is transferred to third party, same is to be utilized only through the agent who has booked the ticket at the first instance.

  1. In cases where passengers have purchased the ticket through an agent, and credit shell is issued in the name of passenger, such credit shell is to be utilized only through the agent who has booked the ticket. In cases where tickets are booked through agent, credit shell as issued in the name of the passenger which is not utilized by 31st March, 2021, refund of the fare collected shall be made to the same account from which account amount was received by the airline.
  2. In all cases where credit shell is issued there shall be an incentive to compensate the passenger from the date of cancellation upto 30th June, 2020 in which event the credit shell shall be enhanced by 0.5% of the face value (the amount of fare collected) for every month or part thereof between the date of cancellation and 30th June, 2020. Thereafter the value of the credit shell shall be enhanced by 0.75% of the face value per month upto 31st March, 2021.

[Pravasi Legal Cell v. Union of India, 2020 SCC OnLine SC 799, decided on 01.10.2020]

Case BriefsCOVID 19Supreme Court

“A worker’s right to life cannot be deemed contingent on the mercy of their employer or the State.”

Supreme Court: The 3-judge bench of Dr. DY Chandrachud. Indu Malhora and KM Joseph, JJ quashed the Notification dated July 20, 2020 issued by the Labour and Employment Department of State of Gujarat under Section 5 of the Factories Act to exempt all factories registered under the Act “from various provisions relating to weekly hours, daily hours, intervals for rest etc. for adult workers” under Sections 51, 54, 55 and 56 till October 19, 2020.

“This Court is cognizant that the State of Gujarat aimed to ameliorate the financial exigencies that were caused due to the pandemic and the subsequent lockdown. However, financial losses cannot be offset on the weary shoulders of the laboring worker, who provides the backbone of the economy.”

The Court, hence, directed that overtime wages shall be paid, in accordance with the provisions of Section 59 of the Factories Act to all eligible workers who have been working since the issuance of the notifications.


NOTIFICATION

On 17 April 2020, the Labour and Employment Department of the State of Gujarat issued a notification with the aim to provide “certain relaxations for industrial and commercial activities” from 20 April 2020 till 19 July 2020. On its lapse by the efflux of time, the State government issued another notification on 20 July 2020 . Similar in content, the new notification extended the exemption granted to factories from 20 July 2020 till 19 October 2020.


POWER UNDER SECTION 5 OF THE FACTORIES ACT, 1962 AND THE PRE-REQUISITE OF ‘PUBLIC EMERGENCY’

NOTE: Section 5 of the Factories Act provides that in a public emergency, the State Government can exempt any factory or class or description of factories from all or any of the provisions of the Act, except Section 67.

The Court noticed that the existence of a public emergency is a pre-requisite to the exercise of the power. Whether there exists a public emergency is not left to the subjective satisfaction of the state government. The absence of the expression “subjective satisfaction” in Section 5 is crucial.

“The existence of a public emergency must hence be demonstrated as an objective fact, when its existence is questioned in a challenge to the exercise of the power. Left to itself, the expression ‘public emergency’ may have a wide and, as we say in law, an elastic meaning.”

Under Section 5 a situation can qualify as a public emergency’, only if the following elements are satisfied:

  • there must exist a “grave emergency”;
  • the security of India or of any part of its territory must be “threatened” by such an emergency; and
  • the cause of the threat must be war, external aggression or internal disturbance.

It was, hence, noticed,

“The co-relationship between the cause and effect must exist. Implicitly therefore, the statutory provision incorporates the principle of proportionality.”


PRECEDENT ON ‘PUBLIC EMERGENCY’ AND ‘SECURITY OF THE STATE’

The power under Section 5 of the Factories Act can be exercised in a “public emergency”. The explanation states that to constitute a public emergency, there must be a grave emergency. The emergency must be of such a nature as to threaten the security of India or a part of its territory. The threat to the security of India or a part of the territory must be caused by war, external aggression or an internal disturbance. The expression ‘internal disturbance’ cannot be divorced from its context or be read in a manner divorced from the other two expressions which precede it. They are indicative of the gravity of the cause which threatens the security of India or a part of its territory. An internal disturbance must be of a similar gravity.

“… it is necessary to evaluate whether a situation of internal disturbance threatens the security of India, or a part of its territory to qualify as a ‘public emergency’. In the absence of any one or more of the constituent elements, the conditions requisite for the exercise of statutory power will not exist.”


IS COVID-19 A ‘PUBLIC EMERGENCY’IN TERMS OF SECTION 5 OF THE FACTORIES ACT, 1962?

“The brunt of the pandemic and of the lockdown has been borne by the working class and by the poorest of the poor. Bereft of social security, they have no fall back options.”

The Court noticed that global pandemic caused by COVID-19 is an unprecedented situation with which countries all over the world are grappling. In India, when the Central Government imposed a nationwide lockdown to take effective measures to contain the spread of COVID-19, there was a widespread migration of labour from the cities, where all avenues for work had closed. There was an unprecedented human migration, countless of the marginalized on foot, to rural areas in search of the bare necessities to sustain life. There has been a loss of incomes and livelihood.

“The respondent has in exercise of its powers under Section 5 of the Factories Act issued the impugned notifications purportedly to provide a fillip to industrial and commercial activities.”

The Court said that even if it accepted the argument of the State that the pandemic has resulted in an internal disturbance, it cannot be said that the economic slowdown created by the COVID-19 pandemic would qualify as an internal disturbance threatening the security of the state.

“The pandemic has put a severe burden on existing, particularly public health, infrastructure and has led to a sharp decline in economic activities. The Union Government has taken recourse to the provisions of the Disaster Management Act, 2005.12 However, it has not affected the security of India, or of a part of its territory in a manner that disturbs the peace and integrity of the country.”

The economic hardships caused by COVID–19 certainly pose unprecedented challenges to governance. However, such challenges are to be resolved by the State Governments within the domain of their functioning under the law, in coordination with the Central Government. Unless the threshold of an economic hardship is so extreme that it leads to disruption of public order and threatens the security of India or of a part of its territory, recourse cannot be taken to such emergency powers which are to be used sparingly under the law.

“Recourse can be taken to them only when the conditions requisite for a valid exercise of statutory power exist under Section 5. That is absent in the present case.”

It was further noticed that the impugned notifications do not serve any purpose, apart from reducing the overhead costs of all factories in the State, without regard to the nature of their manufactured products. It would be fathomable, and within the realm of reasonable possibility during a pandemic, if the factories producing medical equipment such as life-saving drugs, personal protective equipment or sanitisers, would be exempted by way of Section 65(2) of the Factories Act, while justly compensating the workers for supplying their valuable labour in a time of urgent need.

“A blanket notification of exemption to all factories, irrespective of the manufactured product, while denying overtime to the workers, is indicative of the intention to capitalize on the pandemic to force an already worn-down class of society, into the chains of servitude.”


SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC VALUE OF ‘OVERTIME’

The Indian Constitution is born from a transformative vision which aims to achieve social and economic democracy. Labour welfare is an integral element of that vision.The need for protecting labour welfare on one hand and combating a public health crisis occasioned by the pandemic on the other may require careful balances. But these balances must accord with the rule of law. A statutory provision which conditions the grant of an exemption on stipulated conditions must be scrupulously observed.

“It cannot be interpreted to provide a free reign for the State to eliminate provisions promoting dignity and equity in the workplace in the face of novel challenges to the state administration, unless they bear an immediate nexus to ensuring the security of the State against the gravest of threats.”

The principle of paying for overtime work at double the rate of wage is a bulwark against the severe inequity that may otherwise pervade a relationship between workers and the management.


CONSTITUTIONAL VISION OF SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC DEMOCRACY

“Ideas of ‘freedom’ and ‘liberty’ in the Fundamental Rights recognized by the Constitution are but hollow aspirations if the aspiration for a dignified life can be thwarted by the immensity of economic coercion.”

The Factories Act is an integral element of the vision of state policy which seeks to uphold Articles 38,22 39,23,24 and 25 of the Constitution. It does so by attempting to neutralize the excesses in the skewed power dynamics between the managements of factories and their workmen by ensuring decent working conditions, dignity at work and a living wage.

The Court said that the Constitution allows for economic experiments. Judicial review is justifiably held off in matters of policy, particularly economic policy. But the Directive Principles of State Policy cannot be reduced to oblivion by a sleight of interpretation.

“To a worker who has faced the brunt of the pandemic and is currently laboring in a workplace without the luxury of physical distancing, economic dignity based on the rights available under the statute is the least that this Court can ensure them.”

The notifications, in denying humane working conditions and overtime wages provided by law, are an affront to the workers’ right to life and right against forced labour that are secured by Articles 21 and 23 of the Constitution.


CONCLUSION

The Court quashed the Notifications and said that Section 5 of the Factories Act could not have been invoked to issue a blanket notification that exempted all factories from complying with humane working conditions and adequate compensation for overtime, as a response to a pandemic that did not result in an ‘internal disturbance’ of a nature that posed a ‘grave emergency’ whereby the security of India is threatened. In any event, no factory/ classes of factories could have been exempted from compliance with provisions of the Factories Act, unless an ‘internal disturbance’ causes a grave emergency that threatens the security of the state, so as to constitute a ‘public emergency’ within the meaning of Section 5 of the Factories Act.

The notifications in question legitimize the subjection of workers to onerous working conditions at a time when their feeble bargaining power stands whittled by the pandemic.

“Clothed with exceptional powers under Section 5, the state cannot permit workers to be exploited in a manner that renders the hard-won protections of the Factories Act, 1948 illusory and the constitutional promise of social and economic democracy into paper-tigers. It is ironical that this result should ensue at a time when the state must ensure their welfare.”

[Gujarat Mazdoor Sabha v. State of Gujarat, 2020 SCC OnLine SC 798, decided on 01.10.2020]

Case BriefsSupreme Court

Supreme Court: The 3-judge bench of Ashok Bhushan, R. Subhash Reddy and MR Shah, JJ has dismissed an appeal against the Allahabad High Court order refusing to interfere in the matter relating to the regulation of fees structure in Universities and Central Institutions

The plea filed by a law student pursuing LLM at Rajiv Gandhi School of Intellectual Property Law, IIT Kharagpur seeking issuance of directions to the Ministry of Education and University Grant Commission for framing guidelines to regulate the fees structure considering the lack of unanimity in structuring fees resulting into institutions charging full fees even for online classes.

The petition states,

“the tuition fee which will be charged by the institution amid online semester is not arbitrary but the other miscellaneous fee charged is indeed arbitrary.”

The petition highlighted that IIT Kharagpur issued the official notification to its students for starting the online semester tentatively from the last week of August and uploaded the full fees for its students in their institute’s login id and had instructed it to be paid before 27th July 2020. The impugned notification demands all the requisite fees charged against all other facilities which are provided viz. electricity, computer, library, Wi-Fi/ internet, laboratory, mess etc which are in no manner going to be utilized by the student during this period.

The key points highlighted by the petitioner in the petition were:

  • the action of the institution by charging more fees without service will be against the principle of rule of law. Every State Action must be informed by reason and it follows that an act uninformed by reason, is arbitrary. Rule of law contemplates governance by laws and not by humour, whims or caprices of the men to whom the governance is entrusted for the time being.
  • not providing any substantial guidelines will make the fee issues being unaddressed, resulting in charging more fees than expected, thereby leading to de-registration of students on non-payment of fees.
  • parents should not be made to pay for the services which have not been rendered by the schools. All schools, irrespective of whether they offered online classes during lockdown period or not, are only entitled to collect the tuition fee.
  • the salary of teaching and non-teaching staff should be paid even during the lockdown. The guidelines to be issued must be in consonance and proportionate with the salary to be paid to teaching staff and non-teaching staff.

The Supreme Court, however, refused to interfere in the matter and dismissed the SLP.

[Saransh Chaturvedi v. Union of India, special leave to appeal (c) no(s).10722/2020, order dated 25.09.2020]

Case BriefsSupreme Court

Supreme Court: The 3-judge Bench of SA Bobde, CJ and AS Bopanna and S. Ramasubramanian, JJ has ordered a revised schedule for appointment of judicial officers in the State of West Bengal for the year 2020. For the conduct of Madhya Pradesh HJS (District Judge – Entry Level) (Direct Recuitment from Bar) Examination 2020 , the Court has asked the Examination Committee of the Madhya Pradesh High Court to review the situation once in a month and take a decision to conduct the above examination.

High Court of Calcutta

The High Court of Calcutta has approached the Court seeking a modification of the timeline fixed by this Court in Malik Mazhar Sultan vs. U.P. Public Service Commission, (2008) 17 SCC 703 for filling up of vacancies of judicial officers for the year 2020. As per the Malik Mazhar case, the schedule is to commence with the notification of the number of vacancies being issued by the 31st March every year and the whole process coming to an end with the issuance of appointment letters by 30th September indicating the last date of joining as 31st October, 2020.

Admittedly, even the first step namely that of notifying the vacancies, has not been taken due to the announcement of lock down by 24.03.2020.

Therefore, the Court ordered a revised schedule for appointment of judicial officers in the State of West Bengal for the year 2020 as follows:

High Court of Madhya Pradesh

High Court of Madhya Pradesh approached the Court seeking deferment of MPHJS (District Judge – Entry Level) (Direct Recuitment from Bar) Examination 2020 till the Examination Committee finds it suitable to conduct the examination. The notification for recruitment was published on 16.01.2020 and preliminary examination was fixed to be held on 16.03.2020. However, the examination got postponed due to the current Pandemic. On 24.08.2020, a new notification was issued fixing the date of preliminary examination as 30.09.2020. But due to the increase in the number of persons affected by Covid-19, a request was received from the MP High Court Bar Association on 29.08.2020 seeking postponement of the examination.

A total of 3113 candidates are likely to appear for the examination and out of them 1942 candidates belong to other States. The examinations are to be conducted at Bhopal, Indore, Gwalior and Jabalpur.

During the period from 25.03.2020 to 08.08.2020, 8 judicial officers, 52 judicial employees, and 46 Advocates tested positive for Corona. Therefore, the Court directed the Examination Committee of the Madhya Pradesh High Court to review the situation once in a month and take a decision to conduct the above examination. The first of such review shall be conducted in the first week of November, 2020.

The Court said that the the High Court may endeavour to hold the above examination as soon as the situation becomes conducive and the time-schedule shall stand extended accordingly.

[Malik Mazhar Sultan v. U.P. Public Service Commission,  2020 SCC OnLine SC 764, order dated 22.09.2020]

COVID 19Hot Off The PressNews

The Supreme Court Registry has released a detailed User Guide for limited physical hearings.  The ‘How to’ User guide answers the ‘How tos’ on

  1. e-Nomination of Counsel/Clerk for Physical hearing
  2. e-Application for Special Hearing Entry Pass
  3. e- Submission of Self-declaration Form

Some Key Points from the User Guide 

For e-Nomination of Counsel/Clerk for Physical hearing

  • AOR can nominate

1. Senior Counsel
2. Advocate-on-record (Other than the user)
3. Appearing counsel (Any other advocate otherwise eligible)
4. Party to the case represented by concerned AOR
5. Registered Clerk of the concerned AOR or nominee.

Total number of AORs appearing in the selected case will be displayed on the top of screen. The working capacity of the Court Room as per standard social distancing norms would also be on display.

  • How will the Limit be calculated: Limit per AOR is Calculated as per total number of AOR in a given case qua the working capacity of given Court Room.  If Limit per AOR is 0 in that case AOR can replace himself/herself with Senior Counsel or Appearing Counsel or Another AOR, as may be the case. If Limit per AOR is 2 in such case besides such AOR he or she can permit any two or combination of Senior Counsel or Appearing Counsel or Another AORs.
  • Entry of registered clerks is permitted to assist AOR or counsel for supplying physical material, as may be required, to argue a case. However, registered clerks
    are not permitted to enter inside the Court Room. Therefore, registered clerks are not counted as attendee inside the Court Room however his entry is permitted up
    to the Court Room. Therefore, Registered Clerk is not counted in the Limit of persons to be nominated by AOR in a given case.
  • If in a given case only AOR is permitted and such AOR replaces and nominates counsel in his place, in such event AOR will not be permitted inside the Court Room for that item number listed before the Court. In the Figure 6 name of AOR shall be at serial No. 1 by default. When AOR desires to replace himself/ herself, he or she can delete his/her entry and make fresh entry with appropriate replacement.
  • Mobile Number is mandatory field for nominating any person for physical hearing. On the basis of mobile number entry pass mechanism is designed, therefore, ensure that correct mobile number is entered, and it is verified before finally submitting nomination to the Registry.
  • On the day a given case is listed before the Court, nominated entries can be edited or changed till 09.00 am.

For e-Application for Special Hearing Entry Pass

  • AOR or Appearing Counsel or Arguing Counsel or Registered Clerk shall click on Special hearing entry pass link available on the official website Supreme Court of India.
  • Person nominated for special hearing and physical appearance before the Supreme Court of India shall enter his mobile number. If his number is registered by concerned AOR he shall receive OTP. If OTP is not received the concerned may contact respective AOR.
  • Photo ID uploaded while generating entry pass will be physically verified while permitting entry Photo ID is required for identification of the nominated person as Advocate or registered Clerk, as may be the case.
  • If on a particular day, appearance is to be marked in more than one case, multiple passes are required to be generated for that day. For each item number listed before the Court, a separate pass is required. Accordingly, one has to check schedule for the day and generate all passes listed for that day before the various Courts.
  • Before physically entering/ visiting the Supreme Court premises, the entrants have to mandatorily sign self-declaration form about fitness and good health ruling out possibility of self-infection

For e- Submission of Self-declaration Form

Any person or Advocate seeking to enter / visit the premises of the Supreme Court by generating Special Hearing Entry Pass, is mandatorily required to Sign in Selfdeclaration form. Self-declaration is to be signed in by entering OTP sent on registered mobile number only on the day of visit.

To download the user manual, click here.


Also read

SOP for limited physical hearings amidst COVIS-19 pandemic

COVID 19Hot Off The PressNews

After a 7-judge Committee of Justices NV Ramana, Arun Mishra, Rohington Nariman, U U Lalit, A M Khanwilkar, DY Chandrachud and L N Rao recommended re-commencing the physical hearings in some Courts, Chief Justice of India Justice SA Bobde has given the following directions for limited physical hearings amidst COVIS-19 pandemic:

1. On an experimental basis, and as a pilot scheme, physical hearing of matters may initially commence in three Court-rooms; eventually, number of matters or the number of Court-rooms may be increased or reduced, as the situation may warrant or permit;

2. Despite consent by the Advocates/Parties-in-Person, only such number of Counsels/parties may be permitted to appear during physical hearing inside Courtrooms, so that the total number does not exceed the working capacity of the Court(s) as determined considering the physical distancing norms;

3. If in a matter the number of parties is more, then one AOR and one Arguing Counsel per party will be allowed entry; one registered Clerk per party, as may be chosen by the AOR, shall be allowed entry to carry paper-books/journals etc. of the Counsels upto the Court-rooms;

4. Entry into the High Security Zone through proximity cards/long term passes shall be kept suspended, till further orders; entry of counsels/parties or such other stakeholders to appear for such limited physical hearing will be through daily “Special hearing passes” which will be issued by the Registry, on the basis of authorization by the concerned Advocate on Record.

5. Multiple sets of one chair and table are being placed inside the Court Rooms, in the areas demarcated for Advocates/Parties-in-Person, and it shall be incumbent upon the users to maintain minimum prescribed physical distancing norms between each set, which should not be removed from their positions;

6. Advocates/Parties-in-Person/Clerks or other stakeholders, who have been issued Special Hearing Passes, upon completion of necessary formalities, online or otherwise as may be notified in due time, shall enter the High Security Zone through the designated Gate, after subjecting themselves to the thermal and such other scanning devices as may be installed for detecting body temperature, infection status, etc.

7. On entering the High Security Zone, Advocates/Parties-in-Person would proceed to the staging areas/vacant Court-rooms as may be designated, and wait for their turn to enter respective Court Rooms where physical hearing of their respective case(s) may be scheduled, and they would proceed only through the movement corridors created and demarcated for the purpose;

8. At the staging/waiting area(s), concerned volunteers may also guide the Advocates/Parties-in-Person further, as and when their turn comes for entering the designated Court Room for hearing;

9. The entry into and exit from each Court Room shall be by separate doors; entrants into the Court Rooms are advised to use the sanitization devices for sanitizing their hands and also the papers and other items/articles, that they may seek to carry into the Court Rooms with them;

10. It may be noted that wearing of mask, frequent use of hand sanitizer and maintaining physical distancing norms is mandatory for all entrants into the Supreme Court premises, including the Court-rooms;

11. On completion of hearing of their respective case, the Advocates/Parties-in-Person/Clerks, etc. shall move out of the High Security Zone through the movement corridor and exit from the designated gates;

12. Advocates/Parties-in-Person having more than one case for physical hearing in the Court Rooms shall be issued separate Special Hearing Pass for each case and after hearing of one case is complete, they may wait in the designated staging/waiting area(s) for the purpose for appearing for the next hearing(s);

13. In order to facilitate video/tele-conferencing for the Advocates/Parties-in-Person, a dedicated VC Facilitation Centre is located in Block ‘C’, Ground Floor, Additional Building Complex, Supreme Court of India, which can be accessed through Gate No.1 of that Complex.


ALSO READ

COVID-19| 7-judge Committee recommends re-commencing limited physical hearing in Supreme Court

COVID-19| No in-person hearings in SC till further notice; Extremely urgent matters to be heard via video conference

COVID-19| Here’s the list of directions issued by CJI Bobde in the light of Coronavirus lockdown

COVID-19| SC extends limitation period for filing petitions/applications/suits/appeals, etc

COVID-19| SC extends limitation prescribed under the A&C, 1996 and the NI Act,1881

COVID 19Hot Off The PressNews

After the All India Students Association has moved a letter petition on behalf of over 800 students earlier this month, a writ petition has been filed seeking suo moto congnizance of Supreme Court against the direction of CBSE to conduct the compartment examination amidst COVID-19 crisis.

The petition highlights that as per the CBSE Class X and XII results declared last month, around 150198 Class X students and around 87651 Class XII students were placed in the category of compartment full subject. When approached the Supreme Court, the students were asked to make representation before CBSE and upon doing so, CBSE, on August 6, 2020, without taking account of the present health crisis, provided for conduct of compartment exams.

Terming the said decision of CBSE to be in sheer violation of right to health which is part of right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, the petition submits:

  • the conduct of compartment examination will expose the examinees to a great risk. The conduct of offline exam will entail students to travel from one place to another which will further involve the risk of shared accommodation, use of public transport, etc. The petition states that the conduct of examination will also increase the risk of the parents, teachers, staff members, etc being exposed to the virus.
  • the conduct of online exam will be against the interest of students who do not have proper access to internet/laptops/personal computers.
  • the decision of the CBSE is itself flawed as it is against the MHA Unlock III guideline dated 29.07.2020, which provides that the schools, colleges and educational institutions will remain closed.
  • many states including Bihar, Telangana and Manipur have cancelled their state board examination, in view of COVID 19. It is considering the exponential growth in the number of COVID-19 cases.
  • Ramesh Pokhriyal, Minister of Higher Education has stated that yet there is no date fixed for reopening schools and the safety of the students is a primary concern.

“When there is no deadline for opening of schools, how can the students be then expected to appear for compartment examination in the current situation.”

  • On 12.08.2020, C.B.S.E. issued a circular providing for the filing of the examination form for compartment examination by 20.08.2020 extended upto 22.08.2020 (with late fees) and that the compartment examination are proposed to be conducted in September. However, it did not specify any particular date, schedule or mode of conduction of the said examination.
  • many colleges are about to close admissions and some have already announced their admission closure date, which is adversely affecting the career of lacs of students, who will be deprived entrance into Universities/Colleges/Institutions, where they are eligible to apply for admission.

“… if an alternative mechanism is not derived, many students will lose an academic year.”

The Students have, hence, prayed that the universities/colleges/educational institutions, in which a student is eligible to apply, are directed to extend deadline for admission for academic year 2020-2021, until the result of the compartment examination is announced.

The students also sought for direction to direct the C.B.S.E. to provide for alternative mode of assessment for the students placed in the category compartment and to provide a specific date (at the earliest) for the completion of the assessment of compartment students so that their right to apply to various universities/colleges/educational institutions, who have already announced the admission closing date, is not affected.

Hot Off The PressNews

Supreme Court: The Court has refused allow mourning processions across the country during Muharram while observing that it will lead to chaos and the targeting of a particular community for spreading COVID-19. A Bench headed by Chief Justice SA Bobde said it will not pass orders that could risk the health of many people.

“You are asking for vague directions for the whole community in the country. Jagannath Puri case was one specific place where Rath was to go from point A to B. If it was one specific place we can assess the danger and pass orders,”

The Court said it will not pass orders that could risk the health of so many people. It, however, said that the petitioner may approach the High Court. The plea had sought a direction to take out Muharram processions by the Shia community.

(Source: ANI)

Case BriefsSupreme Court

Supreme Court: The 3-judge bench of SA Bobde, CJ and AS Bopanna and V. Ramasubramanian, JJ has allowed the opening of three temples, i.e. one each in Byculla, Dadar (W) and Chembur in Mumbai on 22.08.2020 and 23.08.2020 for devotees to perform the rituals connected with ‘Paryushan’.

The Court, however made clear that

“this order is not intended to be used as a precedent by other persons to seek permission to hold any festivals/festivities which would involve, by their very nature, congregation of people, such as ‘Ganesh Festival’.”

Senior Advocate Dushyant Dave, appearing for the public charitable trust named Shri Parshwatilak Shwetamber Murtipujak Jain Trust, submitted that the Trust has given the following undertakings along with it’s prayer:

  • That the conditions mentioned in the “SOP on preventive measures to contain spread of COVID-10 in religious places/place of worship” dated 4 June 2020 by the Government of India, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare as public health measures will be strictly observed.
  • The entry of devotees will be restricted to 250 persons per day and only in the age group of 12 to 65, in the places of worship.
  • At any given point of time, no congregation of people will be allowed in temples and only up to 5 persons will be allowed to enter and remain within the inner part of the temples.
  • The Jain Community of Mumbai will be appraised of the order that may be passed by this Hon’ble Court and the above conditions through appropriate means of public communication.

On the other hand, Senior Advocate Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for the State of Maharashtra, highlighted that the SOPs issued by the Government of India provides only the minimum threshold and that the different States are entitled to fix a higher threshold depending upon the fact situation.

“… the State Government had applied the restrictions uniformly to all communities and all religions and that nothing can be done to upset the balance.”

The Court was, however, of the view that a small reprieve can be granted to the petitioners, without making it as a precedent. It took note of the fact that the petitioners are not seeking to hold any festivities in congregation. The petitioners want by way of an interim measure opening of three temples, one each in Byculla, Dadar (W) and Chembur in Mumbai. They have undertaken to restrict the entry of devotees only to five persons at any given time subject to maximum of 250 devotees on a single day. This prayer is also restricted only to two days viz., 22.08.2020 and 23.08.2020.

[Shri Parshwatilak Shwetamber Tapagachh Murtipujak Jain Trust v. State of Maharashtra, 2020 SCC OnLine SC 665, order dated 21.08.2020]

Hot Off The PressNews

Supreme Court Registry has written to the President of Supreme Court Advocates on Record Association (SCAORA) informing about the decision made in a meeting held on August 11 by the 7-Judge Committee regarding the resumption of physical hearing of cases in the Court Rooms.

Here are the recommendations of the 7-judge committee: 

  • as a pilot scheme, three amongst the bigger Court Rooms maybe prepared for the physical hearing on an experimental basis while strictly adhering to the social distancing and other norms as per medical advice.
  • a limited number of cases may be listed for physical hearing in these Court Rooms after 10 days subject to the decision of the Competent Authority and upon prior consent of all parties in writing.
  • the numbers of the cases listed may be gradually increased if the ground situation so warrants and permits.
  • all the matters including miscellaneous matters listed on Mondays and Fridays shall continue to be heard through Video Conferencing as per the existing Standard Operating Procedure till further orders.
  • considering the vulnerability, in medical terms, of some stake-holders and their family members to the COVID-19 infection, particularly in the absence of a preventive vaccine or medicine/ procedures to mitigate cure or overcome the disease resulting from such infection, it has been recommended that requests from stake-holders for exemption from participation in any such limited physical hearing inside the Court Rooms may be considered favorably.
  • steps be taken to improve and strengthen e-filing and such other components of hearing through Video Conferencing.

The letter clarified that the recommendations mentioned relate only to the requests and suggestions received in respect of the functioning of the Supreme Court and such recommendations shall not apply in respect of any other Court, Tribunal, or adjudicatory authority in India.

The Supreme Court, since March 25, has been holding hearings through video conferencing due to a nationwide lockdown and even after the restrictions were relaxed, it has decided to continue with the practice. Justices NV Ramana, Arun Mishra, Rohington Nariman, U U Lalit, A M Khanwilkar, DY Chandrachud and L N Rao are part of the committee set up by the CJI to look into the issue of resumption of physical hearings in the Supreme Court again.


ALSO READ

COVID-19| No in-person hearings in SC till further notice; Extremely urgent matters to be heard via video conference

COVID-19| Here’s the list of directions issued by CJI Bobde in the light of Coronavirus lockdown

COVID-19| SC extends limitation period for filing petitions/applications/suits/appeals, etc

COVID-19| SC extends limitation prescribed under the A&C, 1996 and the NI Act,1881

Hot Off The PressNews

Supreme Court: In a major setback to the students appearing for National Eligibility cum Entrance Test (NEET) and Joint Entrance Examination (JEE), a bench headed by Arun Mishra, J has dismissed a petition seeking the postponement of the entrance exams scheduled to be held in September 2020.
The bench observed that the career of students cannot be put under jeopardy for long.

“Life cannot be stopped. We have to move ahead with all safeguards and all… Are you (students) ready to waste one whole year?…Now, the courts are also going to open gradually for physical hearing. We also have these glass panels now,”

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the National Testing Agency, submitted before the Court that all the safeguards will be taken while holding the exam.

Advocate Alakh Alok Srivastava for the petitioners told the court that lakhs of students are looking to Supreme Court for relief. He said that Prime Minister also said on Independence Day that vaccine is on its way.

The petition, filed by eleven students from eleven states, contended that the decision to hold JEE (main) exam through online mode from September 1 to 6 and NEET UG-2020 through offline mode on September 13 at 161 centres across India are arbitrary, whimsical and violative of the fundamental right to life of
lakhs of affected students.

The plea said that the Institution of Chartered Accountants of India (ICAI) had cancelled the CA exams citing COVID-19 risk and remaining exams of CBSE/ICSE/ISC have also been cancelled. It said that the Common Law Admission Entrance Test (CLAT) and the National Institute of Open School exams have also been postponed.

“Lakhs of young students are likely to appear in the aforesaid JEE (Main) April2020 and NEET UG-2020 Exams in the month of September 2020. Meanwhile, COVID-19 cases are increasing in India at an alarming rate. The deadly pandemic COVID-19 has already affected about 20 Lakh people in India and the situation is worsening by every passing day,”

It further states that conducting the aforesaid examination across India at such perilous time is nothing else but putting lives of lakhs of young student at utmost risk and danger of disease and death.


Source: ANI

COVID 19Hot Off The PressNews

A committee of seven Supreme Court judges is learnt to have recommended holding physical hearings in at least two or three of the 15 benches in the Supreme court as early as next week with some additional safety measures. Justices NV Ramana, Arun Mishra, Rohington Nariman, U U Lalit, A M Khanwilkar, DY Chandrachud and L N Rao are part of the committee set up by the CJI to look into the issue of resumption of physical hearings in the Supreme Court again.

The Supreme Court, since March 25, has been holding hearings through video conferencing due to a nationwide lockdown and even after the restrictions were relaxed, it has decided to continue with the practice. In the last week of July, the 7- judge panel headed by senior most judge Justice N V Ramana had apprised the bar leaders of its decision to not open the apex court for physical hearings “for the time being” and had assured to meet them again after two weeks to reconsider the issue.

(Source: PTI)


ALSO READ

COVID-19| No in-person hearings in SC till further notice; Extremely urgent matters to be heard via video conference

COVID-19| Here’s the list of directions issued by CJI Bobde in the light of Coronavirus lockdown

COVID-19| SC extends limitation period for filing petitions/applications/suits/appeals, etc

COVID-19| SC extends limitation prescribed under the A&C, 1996 and the NI Act,1881

COVID 19Hot Off The PressNews

All India Students Association has moved a letter petition on behalf of over 800 students seeking suo moto congnizance of Supreme Court against the direction of CBSE to conduct the compartment examination amidst COVID-19 crisis.

The petition highlights that as per the CBSE Class X and XII results declared last month, around 150198 Class X students and around 87651 Class XII students were placed in the category of compartment full subject.

When approached the Supreme Court, the students were asked to make representation before CBSE and upon doing so, CBSE, on August 6, 2020, without taking account of the present health crisis, provided for conduct of compartment exams.

Terming the said decision of CBSE to be in sheer violation of right to health which is part of right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, the petition submits that the conduct of compartment examination will expose the examinees to a great risk. The conduct of offline exam will entail students to travel from one place to another which will further involve the risk of shared accommodation, use of public transport, etc. The petition states that the conduct of examination will also increase the risk of the parents, teachers, staff members, etc being exposed to the virus.

Regarding conduct of online exam, the petition submits that the same will be against the interest of students who do not have proper access to internet/laptops/personal computers.

The petition also highlights that CBSE has not given any clarity yet on neither the date of the compartment exam nor the mode of conduct. Many colleges are about to close admissions, which will adversely affect the careers of lacs of students who will be deprived entrance into the Institutions of their choice.

It is also submitted that the decision of the CBSE is itself flawed as it is against the MHA Unlock III guideline dated 29.07.2020, which provides that the schools, colleges and educational institutions will remain closed. The petition also states that many states have cancelled the conduct of examinations considering the exponential growth in the number of COVID-19 cases.

It further brings to Court’s notice that the Ramesh Pokhriyal, Minister of Higher Education stated yesterday that yet there is no date fixed for reopening schools and the safety of the students is a primary concern. When there is no deadline for opening of schools, how can the students be then expected to appear for compartment examination in the current situation.

The students, in their petition, state that they are not contending the importance of exams but are seeking appropriate direction of the Court only till the situation normalises. They have urged the Court to stay CBSE decision till the situation normalises. They also pray that steps for alternative system of evaluation be formulated and that provisional passing certificates may be given to the students until COVID-19 situation normalises, so that the students are not deprived of admission to colleges.

COVID 19Hot Off The PressNews

In view of the rapid surge in the number of active Corona Virus cases in Prayagraj and Lucknow, Chief Justice directs that there shall be no sitting of Courts on 12th, 13th and 14th of August, 2020 in the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad.

On the aforementioned dates, only urgent matters mentioned before the Chief Justice and Senior Judge at Lucknow, respectively, shall be taken and no other Court shall be having sitting.

There shall be no physical/e-filing on 12th, 13th, 14th, 15th and 16th August, 2020.

Read the Order, here: ORDER


Allahabad High Court

[Order dt. 09-08-2020]

Case BriefsSupreme Court

Supreme Court: The bench of Ashok Bhushan and R. Subhash Reddy, JJ has directed that all old age people who are eligible for pension should be regularly paid pension and those identified older people should be provided necessary medicines, masks, sanitizers and other essential goods by respective States.

The Court further directed that as and when any individual request is made, the same shall be attended to by the Administration with all promptness. The care givers of those old age homes should be provided personal protection and appropriate sanitization should also be undertaken in the old age homes.

The direction was passed after it was told that the older people, who are living alone, are worst sufferers and they are not able to get medicines, masks, sanitizers and other essential goods. The care givers of these people are also not equipped with personal protection equipment and are also untrained. The petitioner submitted that the older people have already been identified since most of them are getting pension from the States under the different schemes and that appropriate direction be issued for timely payment of old age pension to all elder persons who are in receipt of the pension.

On the submission that the elderly people are not getting priority in the Government hospital irrespective of their capacity to pay, the Court observed that the elderly people should be given priority in the admission in the Government hospital looking to their vulnerability for COVID 19. In event of any complaint made by the elderly people, the hospital administration concerned shall take immediate steps to remedy their grievances.

The States have to file their reply affidavit within four weeks.

[Dr. Ashwani Kumar v. Union of India, 2020 SCC OnLine SC 620 , order dated 04.08.2020]


SCC Online is now on Telegram and Instagram. Join our channel @scconline on Telegram and @scconline_ on Instagram and stay updated with the latest legal news from within and outside India

Case Briefs

Supreme Court: While stating that the Jharkhand High Court has rightly ordered that Shravani Puja cannot be held holding big congregation fair not even the Kanwar yatra could be permitted due to COVID 19, the bench of Arun Mishra, BR Gavai and Krishna Murari, JJ noticed that total restrictions imposed by the High Court for entire months of Shravan and Bhado was not proper and that it should have been left at the discretion of the State Government, if Government can make an arrangement to permit restricted entry of general public in the temple maintaining social distancing.

“The High Court ought not to have directed that no entry should be permitted in the months of Shravan and Bhado. It is basically for the State Government to take a call on this.”

The High Court had, on July 3, 2020, passed an order that online darshan should be allowed during the entire course of Shravani Puja. Accordingly, directions have been issued for online darshan. At the same time, the High Court had also ordered that Puja of Jyotirlinga would continue during the month of Shravan and Bhado, but the same will be done by the temple trust without allowing any public participation.

The Court was also alarmed by the fact that thousands of pandas are gaining entry into the temple premises every day whereas entry of general public is not being allowed at all even in premises to have darshan from distance. On this, it said,

“we are not happy with the situation that thousands of pandas are being permitted entry in the temple every day. This cannot be said to be very conducive situation so as to prevent the spread of virus Covid 19. Entry of such large number of pandas, as alleged, should not be permitted.”

The Court said that the State and Trust should have made an arrangement for regulated entries of pandas while maintaining social distancing.

“… the State Government ought to have permitted systematically at least few hundred numbers of general public on the basis of online booking, giving them different timings of darshan, so that large congregation does not take place and maintaining social distancing for darshans at important festivals of the year but State has not done it so far and only two days are left from the final day of the Shravan month.”

It, hence, asked the State Government and the Temple Trust make an arrangement that no large congregation takes place even of pandas in the temple premises and Garbh Grih. It is The State Government must ensure that only limited number of persons, maintaining social distancing, be that they are pandas and priests of the temple, enter the premises at the same time in the temple premises.

The Court, however, refrained from issuing directions to the State Government to provide the entry. And requested it to find out a possibility for darshan, which ought to have been done for general public as is being done in Ujjain, an another Jyotirligam. In Ujjain, 300 persons are being allowed on the basis of prior online booking, giving them different timings. The Court requested the State Government to, if possible, permit darshan on the day of Purnima and in the month of Bhado also.

It, further, requested the State to find out a possibility of limited entry of general public in temples, churches and mosques in the State. If not outside State, at least the person from within the State as is being done at some other places.

“We direct consideration not only for the temple but in all such religious places whether it be Churches or Mosques, entry of limited number of persons/devotees should have been allowed as is being done throughout India. The State cannot shirk from its responsibility to enforce the social distancing norms, particularly when there is opening up of such places throughout the world.”

[Nishikant Dubey v. Union of India, 2020 SCC OnLine SC 616 , order dated 31.07.2020]

Case BriefsCOVID 19Supreme Court

Supreme Court: On the issue revolving around the timely payment of salaries of doctors and health workers during the period of COVID-19, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta told the bench of Ashok Bhushan, R, Subhash Reddy and MR Shah, that those doctors and health workers, who are quarantined, their period of quarantine cannot be treated as leave and he will obtain necessary instructions/clarifications in that regard.

He has further told the Court that the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare has passed an order on 18.06.2020 directing for payment of salaries of doctors and health workers during the period of COVID-19 on time and that five States i.e. Delhi, Maharashtra, Punjab, Tripura and Karnataka have not paid the salaries to the doctors and health workers on time to the full satisfaction. He, hence, submitted that appropriate steps in this regard shall be taken by the Central Government to ensure that salaries of doctors and health workers is released.

The Court has listed the matter on August 10, 2020 after Solicitor General sought for a week’s time in the matter.

On June 17, 2020, a 3-judge bench of Ashok Bhushan, S K Kaul and M R Shah, JJ directed the Centre to issue directions to states for payment of salaries and providing necessary quarantine facilities to doctors and healthcare workers engaged in treating COVID-19 patients. Earlier, the Court had observed,

“In war, you do not make soldiers unhappy. Travel extra mile and channel some extra money to address their grievances.”

[Dr. Arushi Jain v. Union of India, 2020 SCC OnLine SC 615 , order dated 31.07.2020]



SCC Online is now on Telegram and Instagram. Join our channel @scconline on Telegram and @scconline_ on Instagram and stay updated with the latest legal news from within and outside India.
Case BriefsCOVID 19Supreme Court

Supreme Court: The 3-judge bench of Ashok Bhushan, R. Subhash Reddy and MR Shah, JJ has asked all States/UTs have to file affidavits on compliance of certain directions passed vide order dated 09.06.2020.

On 09.06.2020, the Court had directed all the States/Union Territories to take all necessary steps regarding identification of stranded migrant workers in their State which are willing to return to their native places and take steps for their return journey by train/bus. It has also issued other directions that included a direction to all States/UTs to make rules under the following 3 statutes:

  1. Inter­State Migrant Workmen (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Act, 1979;
  2. Construction Workers (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Act , 1996 and;
  3. Unorganized workers’ Social Security Act, 2008.

The Court had directed that short term and long term measures be taken under the newly framed Rules and a report be submitted to it. The Court, however, noticed

“Although several States have made rules under the above enactments but all necessary details regarding the steps taken by concerned States have not been brought on record.”

It, hence, directed that affidavit be filed by all the States/UTs indicating the steps taken by them with respect to above mentioned enactments within a period of three months.

In order dated 09.06.2020, the Court had also asked the concerned States and Union Territories to maintain record of all such migrant workers, who have arrived at different places. None of the States/Union Territories have, however, filed any affidavit giving details of the compliance of the aforesaid direction. Asking the States and UTs to file affidavits regarding the same within a period of three weeks, the bench said,

“The States are required to bring on record the mode and manner in which records of migrant labourers who have reached their native places are being maintained with their skill, nature of employment and other details.”

The Court made clear that the affidavits to be filed by States/Union Territories, details with regard to compliance of other directions as issued by this Court on 09.06.2020 be also detailed.

On Senior Advocate Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi’s  submissions on the issue of food security, health insurance for migrant labourers, presumption of work by migrant labourers and relaxation on insistence on registration, The Court said that it would consider the same after the necessary affidavits as indicated above are filed  by the States/Union Territories.

[IN RE: PROBLEMS AND MISERIES OF MIGRANT LABOURERS, 2020 SCC OnLine SC 613 , order dated 31.07.2020]


ALSO READ

Order dated 09.06.2020 on directions for transportation of migrant workers


SCC Online is now on Telegram and Instagram. Join our channel @scconline on Telegram and @scconline_ on Instagram and stay updated with the latest legal news from within and outside India.
COVID 19Hot Off The PressNews

Ministry of Home Affairs issues the UNLOCK-3 Guidelines.

Gist

Metro Trains, Cinema halls, swimming pools, entertainment parks, theatres, bars, auditoriums, etc. to remain prohibited from re-opening.

Night Curfew

Restrictions on the movement of individuals during the night have been removed.

Gymnasiums, Yoga Institutes will be allowed to open from August 5, 2020.

Lockdown shall continue to be implemented strictly in the Containment Zones till 31 August, 2020.


List of permitted and prohibited activities under UNLOCK-3

New MHA guidelines

Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) issued new guidelines today, for opening up of more activities in areas outside the Containment Zones. In Unlock 3, which will come into effect from August 1, 2020, the process of phased re-opening of activities has been extended further. The new guidelines, issued today, are based on feedback received from States and UTs, and extensive consultations held with related Central Ministries and Departments.

Salient features of the new guidelines

  • Restrictions on movement of individuals during night (Night curfew) have been removed.
  • Yoga institutes and gymnasiums will be allowed to open from August 5, 2020. In this regard, Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) will be issued by the Ministry of Health & Family Welfare (MoHFW) for ensuring social distancing and to contain the spread of COVID-19.
  • Independence Day functions will be allowed with social distancing and by following other health protocols, e.g., wearing of masks etc. In this regard instructions issued by MHA on 21.07.2020 shall be followed.
  • After extensive consultation with States and UTs, it has been decided that schools, colleges and coaching institutions will remain closed till August 31, 2020.
  • International air travel of passengers has been permitted in a limited manner under the Vande Bharat mission.  Further opening up will take place in a calibrated manner.
  • All activities, except the following, shall be permitted outside containment zones:
  1. Metro Rail.
  2. Cinema halls, swimming pools, entertainment parks, theatres, bars, auditoriums, assembly halls and similar places.
  3. Social/ political/ sports/ entertainment/ academic/ cultural/ religious functions and other large congregations.

Dates for opening of these will be decided separately, based on the assessment of the situation.

  • Lockdown shall continue to be implemented strictly in the Containment Zones till 31 August, 2020. Containment Zones are required to be carefully demarcated by the State/ UT Governments with a view to contain the spread of COVID-19, after taking into consideration the guidelines issued by MOHFW.  Within the containment zones, strict perimeter control shall be maintained and only essential activities allowed.
  • These Containment Zones will be notified on the websites of the respective District Collectors and by the States/ UTs and information will also be shared with MOHFW.
  • Activities in the Containment Zones shall be monitored strictly by State and UT authorities, and the guidelines relating to containment measure in these zones shall be strictly implemented.
  • MOHFW will monitor the proper delineation of Containment Zones and implementation of the containment measures.

States to decide on activities outside Containment Zones

States and UTs, based on their assessment of the situation, may prohibit certain activities outside the Containment zones, or impose such restrictions as deemed necessary. However, there shall be no restriction on inter-State and intra-State movement of persons and goods. No separate permission/ approval/ e-permit will be required for such movements.

National Directives for COVID-19 management

National Directives for COVID-19 management shall continue to be followed throughout the country, with a view to ensure social distancing.  Shops will need to maintain adequate physical distancing among customers. MHA will monitor the effective implementation of National Directives.

Protection for vulnerable persons

Vulnerable persons, i.e., persons above 65 years of age, persons with co-morbidities, pregnant women, and children below the age of 10 years, are advised to stay at home, except for meeting essential requirements and for health purposes.

Use of Aarogya Setu

The use of Aarogya Setu mobile application will continue to be encouraged.

Click here to see MHA Order & Guidelines


[Source: PIB]

Ministry of Home Affairs

Case BriefsCOVID 19Tribunals/Commissions/Regulatory Bodies

Central Information Commission (CIC): Bimal Julka, Chief Information Commissioner, noted that the RTI application seeking very pertinent information with regard to COVID-19 pandemic was shuttled between one public authority to another and held that the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare shall collate all the information and furnish the same to complainant and on its’ website.

Complainant sought records by way of his RTI application on the following points:

  • Date when the Government of India first received information on the coronavirus/Wuhan virus/ virus affecting China.
  • Whether any communication was received by the Government of India about a possible pandemic like situation in India between the period of November 2019 to March, 2020?
  • Copy of the minutes of meeting that took place into the possibility of declaring coronavirus a health emergency or not between the period of March 5th to March 14th, 2020.
  • Whether the Government of India/any of its ministries or departments had received warnings/alerts/communication from the World Health Organisation on the possibility of coronavirus affecting India?
  • Whether any internal reports on a possibility of a pandemic like situation arising in India was communicated within the Ministry or its departments?
  • Any intelligence information on the coronavirus diseases originating from China possibly affecting India in future?
  • Whether the Government of India/this Ministry or its various departments sought China’s assistance in getting the sample of Virus?
  • Was China requested to share virus genetic sequence?
  • On which date did ministry of health first communicated the information of Virus possibly affecting India to PMO?
  • When was the issue of inadequate PPE discussed in the Ministry?
  • Whether additional funds were sought to fight against the virus. If so the date on which the first request and subsequent requests were made and to whom be furnished?
  • Whether the Ministry proposed a ban on incoming Chinese citizens to India?
  • Whether the ICMR received any reports/communications/internal warnings/memos/internal reports during the period of November 2019 to March 2020 about the possibility of a pandemic like situation in India due to the virus: To this ICMR responded that all the information pertaining to circulars, notifications, etc, is available on the ICMR website.
  • Whether the Government of India/this Ministry or its various departments was monitoring the situation in China and its possible effects on India?

To almost all the above queries, ICMR responded with a standard response — Not pertains to ICMR.

Complainant remained dissatisfied with the respondent’s response.

RTI Act

Commission observed that a voluntary disclosure of all information that ought to be displayed in the public domain should be the rule and members of public who having to seek information should be an exception.

Another significant observation was that, an open government, which is the cherished objective of the RTI Act, can be realised only if all public offices comply with proactive disclosure norms.

Accountability

Several decisions are being made by the Governments involving huge interventions in the healthcare impacting daily lives of billions of people, hence it is essential that the decisions are thoroughly documented in order for the Government to remain accountable.

Information pertaining to COVID-19

Complainant sought very pertinent information with regard to COVID-19 situation, which could not be made available by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare.

Commission held that authentic, verified and cogent reply based on factual information needs to be furnished to the complainant as also disclose on the Public Authority website for the benefit of public at large.

Secretary, Health & Family Welfare was advised to have this matter examined at an appropriate level and the Nodal Authority so notified should furnish all the details sought by the Complainant in a clear, cogent and precise manner within a period of 30 days.

In view of the above complaints were disposed of. [Saurav Das v. CPIO, 2020 SCC OnLine CIC 626, decided on 23-07-2020]