Was the lockdown constitutional? Gujarat HC asks Centre to respond to plea

The Gujarat Significant Court on Tuesday questioned the Centre and state governing administration to respond to a PIL which challenged the constitutional validity of the coronavirus-induced lockdown by claiming it forced people today beneath “household arrest” without the need of any backing of regulation, and remaining the vulnerable segment battling for survival with no safeguards delivered to them in advance of its implementation.

The division bench of Justices RM Chhaya and IJ Vora directed the governing administration pleader and assistant solicitor general to consider guidelines from the Central and state governments and post a report on June 19, and tag the PIL with other PILs related to coronavirus and lockdown getting heard by the court.

The PIL, submitted by one Vishvas Bhamburkar by his attorney KR Koshti, sought the court’s route to declare the lockdown “unconstitutional and ultra vires on account of it getting unlawful, arbitrary, unjust, and lousy in regulation and identical may well be struck down in the interest of justice”.

It also sought the court’s route to declare the notifications issued with regards to ‘Janata curfew’ and lockdown as “unconstitutional and without the need of any authority of regulation”.

The petitioner explained lockdown, imposed setting up March 24 by invoking Epidemic Health conditions Act and Catastrophe Management Act “suspended Posting fourteen of the Structure of India by maintaining the people today of the country illegally restrained within their residences without the need of any backing of the regulation”.

Criminal conditions registered in opposition to a substantial number of people today for allegedly violating lockdown has triggered “untold harassment to the citizens,” when the lockdown itself is violative of the Structure of India, the PIL explained.

Lockdown damage the vulnerable sections a great deal, who had been remaining battling for survival and existence, as no safeguard was delivered by the authorities in advance of applying it.

“The provisions of DMA, a lot more particularly sections twelve and thirteen which ensured the welfare of the people and safeguarded their livelihoods (Posting 21) and other acceptable pursuits had been not invoked hence the lockdown was neither imposed constitutionally nor has it been carried out lawfully, logically nor scientifically,” the PIL explained.

“Even though four days’ guide time was provided for the Janata Curfew, hardly four hours’ time was provided to the crores of Indians to arrange their life and livelihoods in an orderly way,” it explained.