Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
Prathiba M. Singh, J.
Saurabh Sharma and Ors. —Petitioners
versus
Sub-Divisional Magistrate (East)
and Ors. —Respondents
W.P.(C) 6595 of 2020 & CM APPL.23013 of 2020 with W.P.(C) 8455 of 2020 & CM APPL.27312 of 2020 with W.P.(C) 8588 of 2020 and W.P.(C) 9408 of 2020
Decided on 7.4.2021
(A) Delhi Epidemic Diseases (Management of Covid-19) Regulations, 2020 – Regulation 3(g) – Disaster Management Act, 2005 – Section 24 – Notification dated 13th June, 2020, , issued by Lt. Governor of Delhi, in exercise of powers under Section 2 of Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897 read with Order dated 8th April 2020 issued by DDMA – Corona Pandemic – Wearing of face mask – Spread of Corona virus can be reduced substantially by wearing of face masks – Wearing of face masks/covers is mandatory for any person moving in a public place – April Order and Regulations of 2020 have to be interpreted in context and background of pandemic and not in isolation thereof – April Order specifically records that spread of Corona virus can be reduced substantially by wearing of face masks – In absence of a complete definitive cure, world continues to wrestle with pandemic – Challenge of pandemic was enormous at outbreak of same and even with introduction of a few vaccines, emphasis continues to be laid on wearing of face masks – Wearing of masks is necessary irrespective of whether a person is vaccinated or not. (Paras 35, 36 and 37)
(B) Disaster Management Act, 2005 – Section 24 – Delhi Epidemic Diseases (Management of Covid-19) Regulations, 2020 – Regulation 3(g) – Notification dated 13th June, 2020, , issued by Lt. Governor of Delhi, in exercise of powers under Section 2 of Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897 read with Order dated 8th April 2020 issued by DDMA – Corona Pandemic – Considering manner in which virus can spread when car is occupied by more than one person, masks ought to be worn by each of occupants – April Order 2020 makes it unequivocally clear that any person moving in a personal or official vehicle “must” wear masks “compulsorily” – This Order does not distinguish between whether person is travelling alone or with any other occupants in car – Since occupants of a car could be persons who may have been exposed to virus at any point in time and may be temporarily occupying car, fact that they would be sitting in an enclosed space, especially with windows rolled up makes them extremely vulnerable if they do not wear masks – Multiple occupants in a car, in any personal or official vehicle would have to compulsorily wear masks. (Paras 38 and 44)
(C) Delhi Epidemic Diseases (Management of Covid-19) Regulations, 2020 – Regulation 3(g) – Disaster Management Act, 2005 – Section 24 – Notification dated 13th June, 2020, , issued by Lt. Governor of Delhi, in exercise of powers under Section 2 of Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897 read with Order dated 8th April 2020 issued by DDMA – Corona Pandemic – Imposition of fine for not wearing face mask while travelling alone in privately owned car – Person travelling in a vehicle or car even if he is alone, could be exposed to virus in various ways – There are several possibilities in which while sitting alone in car one could be exposed to outside world – It cannot be said that merely because person is travelling alone in a car, car would not be a public place – Mask protects person wearing it, as also persons to whom person is exposed – Since inception of pandemic, wearing of masks has been one measure that has saved millions of lives – Wearing of mask even in one’s own homes is encouraged if there are elderly persons or persons suffering from co-morbidities – A vehicle which is moving across the city, even if occupied at a given point in time by one person, would be a public place owing to immediate risk of exposure to other persons under varying circumstances – A vehicle even if occupied by only one person would constitute a ‘public place’ and wearing of a mask therein, would be compulsory – Wearing of a mask or a face cover in a vehicle which may be occupied by either a single person or multiple persons is held to be compulsory in context of Covid-19 pandemic – Definition of authorised persons being inclusive and expansive in nature, District Magistrates are also vested with powers to further authorise any officers to issue challans – Challans have been issued by duly authorised officers – Prayer for quashing of challans is not sustainable – Writ Petitions dismissed. (Paras 51, 52, 53, 55 and 57)
(D) Corona Pandemic – Wearing of face masks – Wearing of masks cannot be made an ego issue – Compliance by Advocates and Lawyers would encourage general public to show greater inclination to comply – Duty of Advocates and Lawyers is of a greater magnitude, especially in context of pandemic for enforcement of directives, measures and guidelines issued under Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897 and Disaster Management Act, 2005 – Advocates as a class, owing to their legal training have a higher duty to show compliance especially in extenuating circumstances such as the pandemic. (Para 56)
(E) Words and Phrases – Public Place – Term ‘public place’ has to be understood in larger context – To determine what constitutes a ‘public place’ manner in which Corona virus can spread is crucial part – Corona virus spreads through droplets either through breathing of a person or from mouth – Risk of exposure increases multiple times if a person comes into contact with a person who is infected and is not wearing a mask – For a place to fall within purview of this term, it need not be public property and could even be private property which is accessible to public. (Paras 47, 48, 49 and 50)
Result: Petitions dismissed.
JUDGMENT
Prathiba M. Singh, J.—These are four writ petitions filed challenging the imposition of fine of Rs.500/-, on the Petitioners, for non – wearing of face masks while travelling alone in a private car. The brief facts of each of the cases are captured below.
2. In W.P.(C) 6595/2020, the Petitioner’s case is that he is a practicing advocate for the last 20 years. On 9th September, 2020, at about 11.00 A.M., he was driving a Honda City DL 13CC 1479, and was stopped by the police near Geeta Colony, New Delhi. It is not disputed that he was travelling alone in his car. After the car was stopped, an Executive Magistrate, along with a Police Constable and a Delhi Police Inspector, informed the Petitioner that a fine of Rs. 500/- is being imposed on him for not wearing a mask in a public place. The Petitioner challenged such imposition of fine before the officials, on the ground that since he was travelling alone in his car, the said car does not constitute a public place and would be a private zone. Accordingly, it is prayed that the challan bearing challan no. 2993, dated 9th September, 2020, be quashed and the amount of Rs. 500/- be refunded. In addition, compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- is sought on the ground of alleged mental harassment publicly caused to the Petitioner.
3. In W.P.(C) 8455/2020, the facts are that the Petitioner is a lawyer who was stated to be on his way to his chambers at Tis Hazari Courts, around 12.00 noon on 9th August, 2020. He was driving his privately owned car, a Maruti Suzuki Swift and was stopped near Aruna Asaf Ali Hospital, Rajpur Road, Civil Lines by the Police. The Petitioner was in his car travelling alone, with his mask hanging on his face, from one of his ears. The case of the Petitioner is that since he was in his car alone, he had not put the face mask on and that he had intended to wear the mask as soon as he stepped out of the car. It is highlighted that the four windows of the Petitioner’s car were closed. When the police official stopped his car, he was informed that the non-wearing of mask by him is in violation of the Delhi Epidemic Diseases (Management of Covid-19) Regulations, 2020 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Regulations of 2020’) and a sum of Rs. 500/- was imposed on him as fine. In this petition, apart from quashing of challan bearing challan no. A-22062, dated 9th August, 2020, a declaration is sought to the effect that privately owned cars are private places for the purpose of the Regulations of 2020. Apart from refund of the amount of Rs. 500/- paid by the Petitioner as fine, a compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/- is sought in the present petition for mental harassment.
4. The Petitioner in W.P.(C) 8588/2020 is also a practicing advocate who states that he was crossing Vikas Marg area near Laxmi Nagar Metro Station on 20th August, 2020 in his privately owned car, with all windows of the car closed. However, officials of the Delhi Police stopped his car on the ground that he was not wearing a face mask in his car. Similarly, an amount of Rs. 500/- was imposed on him as fine for violations of the Regulations of 2020. In this case, a direction is sought that the Respondent-Authorities ought not to fine people for not wearing a face mask while in their own car. Refund of Rs. 500/- is sought, along with compensation of an unascertained sum.
5. In W.P.(C) 9408/2020, the Petitioner is a lawyer stated to be practicing at Karkardooma Courts, New Delhi. On 25th October, 2020, he was travelling in his i-10 Grand bearing no. DL8CAE1725, along with his wife and had reached a spot in front of the of D.C. Office, Nand Nagri at about 1.50 P.M. It is stated that a Civil Defence Personnel forced him to stop his car. After the Petioner’s car was stopped, the Civil Defence Personnel, along with a member of the Enforcement Team of SDM, Shahdara, informed him that since he is not wearing a face mask but only a cotton safa/dupatta/scraf around his mouth and nose, he would be liable to pay a fine of
SupremeToday
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of wearing masks during the Covid-19 pandemic and the need for proper research and material in public interest litigations.
The competence of the Central Government to issue notifications under Section 88 of the MV Act for tourist vehicles and the competence of the State Government to lay down rules for the uniform to be ....
The main legal point established is that a restriction cannot be imposed retrospectively, and in the absence of evidence of a quarantine directive, the petitioner's actions did not constitute a viola....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the imposition of e-pass requirements for movement during the COVID-19 pandemic was reasonable and not arbitrary, considering the acute surge ....
The central legal point established in the judgment is the mandatory compliance with legal provisions, the requirement for evidence to support charges, and the need for proper service through the Emb....
Point of Law : High Court will have jurisdiction if cause of action wholly or in part arises within the territorial limits of its jurisdiction, even though the seat of the Government or authority or ....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
