Delhi High Court
Amit Bhargava vs The State (Nct Of Delhi) on 11 May, 2020
$~7
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 3016/2020
AMIT BHARGAVA .... Petitioner
Through: Ms. Shyel Trehan, Ms. Bhagya
K. Yadav and Mr. Kshitij Dua,
Advs.
versus
THE STATE (NCT OF DELHI) ..... Respondent
Through: Ms. Shobhana Takiar, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR
% J U D G M E N T (ORAL)
11.05.2020
1. This matter has been taken up for hearing by video
conferencing.
2. The petitioner, undisputedly, came, on 24 th March, 2020, in
contact with a person, who was home delivering pizzas and who,
subsequently, tested positive for the COVID-2019 virus, on 14th April,
2020.
3. According to the averments in the writ petition, the petitioner
was placed under home quarantine, vide notice dated 15th April, 2020,
for the period 24th March, 2020 till 20th April, 2020, i.e. for a period of
W.P. (C) 3016/2020 Page 1 of 22
28 days. Subsequently, vide a second notice, dated 17th April, 2020,
the period of home quarantine of petitioner, was renotified as 14 th
April, 2020 to 28th April, 2020.
4. The said period has expired.
5. During the currency of the aforesaid period of quarantine, the
petitioner was issued a warning notice, dated 20 th April, 2020, which
reads thus:
"OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE (SOUTH)
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI
M.B. ROAD, SAKET, NEW DELHI-110068
PH:011-29535025 EMAIL: [email protected]
F.No. 17/SDM/HK/Misc/2020/784-86 Dated: 20/4/2020
WARNING
To,
Sh. AmitBhargava
B-5/44, Azad Apartments, Sri Aurobindo Marg,
New Delhi - 110016
Sub: CORONAVIRUS HOME QUARANTINE -
ISSUING OF WARNING FOR NOW
FOLLOWING THE NORMS FOR
CONTAINMENT OF COVID-19
You were directed to remain in quarantine upto
28.04.2020. It has been observed that you are not following
the norms of house Quarantine effectively and posing as a
potential threat to the people living around you.
It is to inform you that disobedience in
following/observing any legal order at this juncture of Corona
Pandemic, as advised, may attract penalties including
W.P. (C) 3016/2020 Page 2 of 22
provisions under the National Disaster Management Act,
2005, Epidemic Disaster Act 1897 and Indian Penal Code.
It is pertinent to mention here that if any violation of
aforesaid direction shall be reported, then strict action shall be
taken for violation of relevant provisions of National Disaster
Management Act 2005, Epidemic Disaster Act 1897 and
Indian Penal Code.
This is your final warning. Kindly Self Quarantine yourself
for the benefit of your own health and those around you.
REMAIN AT HOME. BE A HERO
Sd/-
(MANOJ KUMAR BHARTI)
EXECUTIVE MAGISTRATE
DEPUTED FOR SPECIAL DUTY WITH SDM (HAUZ
KHAS)
District - South
Copy to:
1. PA to DM (South), M.B. Road, Saket, New Delhi for
information.
2. The SDM (HauzKhas), M.B. Road, Saket, New Delhi -
110068"
6. On the last date of hearing, Ms. Shyel Trehan, learned counsel
for the petitioner, advanced the following three submissions:
(i) The warning notice, dated 20th April, 2020, was
completely false on facts. There had been no violation, by her
client, of the home quarantine imposed on him.
(ii) Despite the expiry of the period of home quarantine on
28th April, 2020, the officials of the respondent had directed the
petitioner to continue to remain quarantined till the notice of
W.P. (C) 3016/2020 Page 3 of 22
quarantine, affixed on his premises, was removed.
(iii) The period of quarantine was not in conformity with the
applicable guidelines on the issue, specifically, the "Guideline
for Home Quarantine" issued by the Directorate General of
Health Services (DGHS) 14th March, 2020 and the Delhi
Epidemic Diseases, COVID-2019 Regulations, 2020
(hereinafter referred to as "the 2020 Regulations").
7. Incidentally, the writ petition also prays for a direction, to the
respondent, to formulate a policy to enable people, in home
quarantine, to access private laboratories, for COVID-2019 test.
However, on the last date of hearing, i.e. 29th April, 2020, I had
opined, following the State of Himachal Pradesh v. Satpal Saini1,
that the said prayer was not maintainable as this Court, in exercise of
its power under Article 226 of Constitution of India, does not direct
framing of policies.
8. Notice was, therefore, issued on the writ petition, limited to the
remaining prayers, which, for ready reference, may be reproduced
thus:
" In the premises and circumstances set forth hereinabove and
in the interest of justice and equity, it is, therefore, most
respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be graciously
pleased to:
a) Issue an appropriate writ, direction or order
quashing the Home Quarantine Notice & Second
1 (2017) 11 SCC 42
W.P. (C) 3016/2020 Page 4 of 22
Home Quarantine Notice arbitrary, as they have
imposed a quarantine period of over 30 days from the
date of contact on the Petitioner, which is not
contemplated by law;
b) Issue an appropriate writ, direction or order
quashing Warning Notice dated 20.04.2020 issued by
the District Magistrate (South), Govt. of NCT of Delhi
as being violative of the principles of natural justice
and the principle of audi alteram partem;
xxx xxx xxx
d) Issue an appropriate writ, direction or order
directing Respondent to appropriately amend the
format of its Home Quarantine Notice to reflect date of
contact with infected person/ reason for quarantine,
date and time of imposition of quarantine and date and
time for end of quarantine.
e) Issue an appropriate writ, direction or order
directing Respondent to clarify for the benefit of public
at large whether home quarantine measures for people
having exposure to a COVID-19 positive patient is to
be 14 days from exposure, or 28 days from exposure.
f) Pass any such further order(s), as this Hon'ble
Court may deem fit and proper."
9. A counter-affidavit has been filed by the respondent-
Government of NCT of Delhi (GNCTD).
10. The respondent has, in the first instance, placed reliance on
Sections 73 and 74 of the Disaster Management Act, 2005 and on
Regulation 19 of the 2020 Regulations. Thereafter, there is a detailed
discussion on the COVID-2019 pandemic and the challenges being
faced by the Government in containing, and in controlling, the same.
W.P. (C) 3016/2020 Page 5 of 22
11. Apropos the specific challenges of the petitioner, the counter
affidavit avers thus:
(i) On 24th March, 2020, when the infected pizza delivery
boy delivered pizza to the petitioner, the entire nation was under
lockdown. It could not, therefore, be said that the petitioner had
been placed under home quarantine from the said date, at that
time.
(ii) Subsequently, when the pizza delivery boy tested positive
with the COVID-2019 virus on 14th April, 2020, it was decided
to place all persons, who had been in contact with him, under
quarantine for a period of 28 days from the date of delivery, to
them, of pizza. Accordingly, a home quarantine sticker, to the
said effect, was pasted on the petitioner's premises.
(iii) Subsequently, the said sticker was replaced on 17 th April,
2020, with another sticker, placing the petitioner in home
quarantine for 14 days with effect from the date when pizza
delivery boy tested positive i.e. 14th April, 2020 till 28th April,
2020. This was done, as the petitioner was asymptomatic.
(iv) As such, there had been no infraction of the 14 day period
stipulated for home quarantine in the applicable Guidelines. The
fixation of the first sticker on 15th April, 2020, was intended to
create awareness for people, who had come in contact with the
petitioner to get themselves tested. The actual home quarantine
W.P. (C) 3016/2020 Page 6 of 22
of the petitioner, as effected, vide the second notice dated 17th
April, 2020, was in accordance with the prescribed guidelines,
i.e. only for 14 days. The period of lockdown suffered by the
petitioner prior thereto was a nationwide lockdown not
specifically imposed on the petitioner.
(v) On 27th April, 2020, the petitioner was screened and
found not to be suffering from the COVID-2019 virus. The
sticker, affixed at his premises, thereafter, was removed.
12. Ms. Trehan, learned counsel for the petitioner, invites my
attention to the concluding paragraphs of the Guidelines for Home
Quarantine, dated 14th March, 2020 and Regulation 5(i) of the 2020
Regulations. These two provisions are, for ready reference,
reproduced thus:
Guidelines for Home Quarantine dated 14th March, 2020
"Duration of Home Quarantine
a) The home quarantine period is for 14 days from
contact with a confirmed case or earlier if a suspect
case (of whom the index person is a contact) turns out
negative on laboratory testing"
Regulation 5(i), 2020 Regulations
"5. All Hospitals (Government & Private) during
screening of such cases shall record to ascertain history of
travel of the person if he/she has travelled to any country or
area where COVID-19 has been reported. In addition the
history of coming in contact with a suspected or confirmed
case of COVID-19 shall be recorded.
W.P. (C) 3016/2020 Page 7 of 22
i) In case the person has any such history in last 14 days
and the person is asymptomatic then the person must be kept
in home quarantine for 14 days from the day of exposure"
13. Ms. Trehan submits that, these regulations, unmistakeably,
justify placing a person in quarantine only for a period of 14 days
from the date on which the person came in contact with someone who
was found to be COVID-2019 positive.
14. Her client, she points out, had come in contact with the
aforesaid pizza delivery boy on 24th March, 2020. The period of 14
days, reckoned therefrom, expired on or around 7th April, 2020. There
was, therefore, in her submission, no justification in placing the
petitioner under home quarantine for 14 days with effect from 14th
April, 2020. In fact, submits Ms. Trehan, the petitioner ought not
have been placed under quarantine at all, as he had not tested positive
within 14 days of his coming into contact with the aforesaid infected
pizza delivery boy.
15. Arithmetically and logically speaking, Ms. Trehan may have a
point. However, the COVID-2019 virus is, presently, not known to
subscribe to the dictates either of arithmetic or of logic. The
respondent has, apparently, calculated the period of 14 days,
commencing 14th April, 2020, when the pizza delivery boy tested
positive. The petitioner has not been placed under home quarantine,
for a day beyond 14 days, reckoned from the date when the pizza
delivery boy tested positive and from which date, therefore, he could
be treated as a "confirmed case" of COVID-2019 infection - to
W.P. (C) 3016/2020 Page 8 of 22
borrow the expression used in the Guidelines dated 14th March, 2020.
16. I deem it appropriate, in this context, to reproduce, in extenso,
paras 6, 15 to 18, 25 to 30, 32 to 34, 36 and 38 of the counter affidavit
of the respondent thus:
"6. That for proper, just and objective appreciation of the
facts of the case the deponent respectfully submits
preliminary submissions as follows:
a) The disease caused by virus SARS-CoV-2 is
named as COVID-19. The World Health Organization
(WHO) declared 2019-20 coronavirus outbreak a
Public Health Emergency of International Concern
(PHEIC) on 30th January 2020 and a pandemic on 11
March 2020.
b) It is pertinent to mention that current estimates
of the incubation period of COVID range from 2-14
days, and these estimates will be refined as more data
become available. Due to paucity of scientific literature
based on community based studies it is estimated. At
this time all over the world even many of the crucial
epidemiological information particularly source of
infection, mode of transmission, period of infectivity,
etc. are still under investigation.
c) The Hon'ble Prime Minister of India keeping in
mind all the above facts and circumstances announced
'Janta Curfew', as a measure of social distancing to
fight 'COVID 19' which was observed on 22.03.2020.
In the present times of acute crisis because of which
the entire country is facing a lock-down of 21 days
which is further extended beginning from 25th March
2020, it is the time for the people of India to do
handholding with the government, and not to come up
before the Court by filing frivolous petition, rather
Home Quarantine should be a voluntary act of the
petitioner under such a grim situation for his own
safety and benefit as well as for the entire society.
W.P. (C) 3016/2020 Page 9 of 22
d) It is also worth mentioning that in a state of
lock-down and social distancing, the Government
employees (the respondent) of various departments
falling under essential services like police, medical and
health, food and civil supplies, labour and
employment, finance, etc., are working day and night
to deal with crisis risking their life, and at this juncture
any litigation which is found to be motivated or
sponsored or for personal gains for popularity or any
vested interest, or frivolous should be dealt with firmly
by this Hon'ble Court.
e) It is pertinent to mention that the Central
Government and the State Governments including
GNCTD, the respondent in furtherance of their
commitment to attend to the welfare of the people of
India to provide sustenance to one and all are taking
extra-ordinary measures, both in accordance with law,
protocols as per the situation and terms of policy
decisions needed at this critical time as also spending
huge amounts from the public exchequer. Dozens of
restrictions and relaxations have been announced to
accommodate one and all whose survival may be at
stake. In the present scenario the restrictions as
imposed by the Central and State Government on
citizens under the Epidemic laws are not the arbitrary
action of the State or infringing any fundamental rights
of a citizen of India.
f) It is submitted there is war-like situation in
whole country and every government official of the
respondent including Doctors are working round the
clock to save the nation from the Global Pandemic of
Corona Virus Disease. COVID-19 is an infectious
disease caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome
coronavirus 2 (SARSCoV-2). As on April 27, 2020,
more than 3.04 million cases have been reported across
185 countries and territories, resulting in more than
approximately 2,07,100 deaths. More than 27,000
approximately cases have been reported in India so far.
g) It is submitted that in the absence of proven
drug or vaccine, non-pharmaceutical interventions is
W.P. (C) 3016/2020 Page 10 of 22
the main stay for containment of COVID-19 cluster.
Preventive public health measures are for adoption of
community-wide practice of frequent washing of hands
and respiratory etiquettes. The testing continues till 14
days from the date the last confirmed case is declared
negative by laboratory test.
h) Under non-pharmaceutical interventions,
Quarantine and Isolation are important mainstay of
cluster containment. These measures help by breaking
the chain of transmission in the community.
i) Quarantine refers to separation of individuals
who are not yet ill but have been exposed to COVID-
19 and therefore have a potential to become ill. There
will be home quarantine/ facility quarantine of contacts
of suspect/ confirmed cases. The guideline on home
quarantine available on the website of the Ministry
provides detailed guidance on home quarantine which
is annexed by the petitioner and is available at page -
of the paper book. The contacts advised quarantine will
undergo risk profiling.
Those above 60 or with comorbidities will be shifted to
designated quarantine facility. This will help identify
early development of symptoms among them, their
testing and shifting to isolation facility under para 9.
j) Isolation refers to separation of individuals who
are ill and suspected or confirmed of COVID-19. There
are various modalities of isolating a patient. Ideally,
patients can be isolated in individual isolation rooms or
negative pressure rooms with 12 or more air-changes
per hour.
k) That as per the existing Acts/ Rules the Home
Ministry has delegated the powers under Disaster
Management Act, 2005 [Section 10 sub-section 2
clauses (i) and (l)] to Secretary (Health and Family
Welfare) to act in such a way to contain or control the
outbreak. States may invoke the provisions under
Disaster Management Act, 2005 or under the Epidemic
Act, 1897 to delegate powers to identify authority to
act in such a manner to control or contain the outbreak.
W.P. (C) 3016/2020 Page 11 of 22
1) Indian Penal Code under sections 270 provides
power to act against those indulging in spread of
disease. Section 144 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, when invoked, prohibits gathering of
people.
*****
15. In addition it is further submitted that the current
estimates of the incubation period of COVID range from 2-14
days, and these estimates will be refined as more data become
available. Due to paucity of scientific literature based on
community based studies it is estimated. At this time even
many of the crucial epidemiological information particularly
source of infection, mode of transmission, period of
infectivity, etc. are still under investigation. Virus,
SARS-Co V-2, primarily spreads between people during close
contact. The spread may be possible before symptoms appear
and in later stages of the disease.
16. Hence, keeping in view the above facts and
circumstances under the regulations and protocol established,
consequent upon such inquiry, inspection, examination or
otherwise, Surveillance Personnel has reason to believe or
suspect that such a person could be infected with COVID-19,
the Surveillance Personnel may direct/arrange to put that
person(s) in home quarantine or direct/escort that persons(s)
under 'Institutional Quarantine Facility' or 'Isolation Facility'.
17. In the present case for safer side as per regulation and
protocol the Petitioner was kept under Home Quarantine from
the date of positive test of COVID-19 of the delivery boy.
Prior to that the petitioner was under lockdown but was not in
quarantine as such he was in touch with others.
18. It is pertinent to mention that in these difficult times
where there is a perpetual tiff between saving lives and
catering to individual rights is concerned; the former stands to
gain all importance. At all levels the administration ensure
that petitioner's individual rights are not encroached but as the
situation demands the greater good has become the prime
objective. Governance cannot function effectively without an
active support of its subjects. The irony of the situation is
such that not only does the petitioner's efforts ensure his good
health, a little carelessness may lead a number of persons to
its doom. Medical teams already have their hands full and are
constantly handling immense pressure.
*****
25. At this juncture it is relevant to state that the district
administration along with the Health authorities has been
rigorously working without any delay in ensuring that no case
is left unchecked. Multiple teams have been assigned with
keeping a record of quarantined homes, number of persons
screened, cases who travel to another districts for carrying out
their designated essential duty, thorough examination of
Institutional Quarantined cases, attending to complaints
received 24x7, supply of medical and essential groceries to
those in need, maintaining law & order, and keeping a track of
suspected cases.
26. Currently, there is no vaccine or specific antiviral
treatment for COVID-19. As stated above management
involves isolation, experimental measures, maintaining
physical distance from other, social distancing or rather
Home Quarantine for the good.
27. Preventive measures to reduce the chances of infection
include staying at home, avoiding crowded places, social
distancing, restricting travel and avoiding engaging with
people outside from home. That, as per the guidelines issued
by Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, DGHS, (EMR
Division), a contact is defined as a healthy person that has
been in such association with an infected person or a
contaminated environment as to have exposed and is therefore
at a higher risk of developing disease. It is submitted that a
provision has been made for home quarantine of specified
persons to prevent further spread of the disease. As stated
above Home Quarantine and Isolation are important mainstay
of cluster containment. These measures help by breaking the
chain of transmission in the community.
28. That, the district administration of the respondent is
engaged in identifying containment zones while carrying out
extensive medical screening of such areas, which includes a
large number of health personnel and civil authorities together
at one place. As the lockdown is still in progress, the
administration has to ensure proper food distribution to those
in need, keep a check on shelter homes, attending to
emergency calls, initiating active and passive surveillance of
COVID-19 cases, banning entry and exit of population from
the containment area, taking note of individual cases at
priority and the execution of the quarantine or screening,
whichever is required as per the ground report.
29. That, the medical team engaged for listing the cases is
under much pressure as even a single cases left untraced may
turn an entire locality into a hotspot. There are umpteen
number of precautions that are to be dealt with by the medical
teams in addition to which they are already facing their share
of challenges every second of the day. This is in the light of
WHO list of considerations, one being reproduced here as
"Cultural, geographic and economic factors affect the
effectiveness of quarantine ".
30. That, in view of the above facts, it is submitted that this
Hon'ble court may be pleased to consider that District South
has a population density of approx. 24,000 persons per sq.km.
Further, as per due suggestions received from the concerned
medical team, the petitioner fell under the category of Home
Quarantine. Therefore, it was acquiesced to put the contacts of
the said Sh. Akash Pandey under Home Quarantine for a
period of 14 days w.e.f. the date of test result of Sh. Akash
Pandey, that turned out positive.
*****
32. In view of the above, it may please be noted that one of
the prime objective is to trace each and every case and run
immediate measures to control the disease, in this case, and
make sure that the spread be limited to zero. This has to be
done with the advice of various local authorities, medical
teams, surveillance teams, food distribution teams, and
screening teams. As screening and deep surveys are currently
going on in the local areas, it is not possible to assign the
medical and local authority staff at each individual case.
Therefore, in light of proper containment of this disease, it has
been decided to Home Quarantine such cases which have
even the minimum of contact history.
33. That, WHO in its list of Considerations has stated that
"WHO continues to monitor the situation closely for any
changes that may affect this interim guidance." Therefore, it
may kindly be considered that a specific and rigid form of
preventive measures may cause lacuna in containing the
spread of coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Hence, the decision
to put the contacts of Sh. Akash Pandey under Home
Quarantine for duration of 14 days was asserted w.e.f. date of
result of Sh. Akash Pandey in order to boost containment of
the disease.
34. That, "Home Under Quarantine" notice is pasted as per
the contact history tracing and information of exposure
received from the authorities. It is submitted that in the
process of keeping the petitioner safe, the pasting of HQ
notice was highly in his own interests. The fact that 69% of
total positive cases in India had an asymptomatic history,
may be given top priority.
*****
36. That the respondent respectfully submits and humbly
wants to bring it to the knowledge of this Hon'ble Court that
many of the Areas in the city of Delhi have been completely
sealed due to lockdown and particularly in this case, 72 other
houses has been put under quarantine and pasted with HQ
Quarantine Stickers. But rest of the public from South Zone
District is appreciating the efforts and is cooperating with the
officials of the district but the petitioner is having problems
with the Department and also trying to hinder the working of
Respondent Officials as the same are working round the clock
for the welfare of General Public.
*****
38. Lastly it is submitted that the Respondent has weighed
all the pros and cons before taking the decision. Petitioner's
wisdom cannot be substituted for the wisdom of the
Administration during this crisis. Maintaining social distance
in the nature of Home Quarantine for 14 days as mentioned
above is a sine qua non to control the disease. It is submitted
accordingly."
17. This Court entirely endorses the sentiments expressed in the
afore-extracted passages from the counter affidavit filed by the
respondent. Tackling the COVID-2019 pandemic is a challenge, the
scale of which has not been seen during the lifetime of any of us and,
hopefully, would not be seen hereafter either. There can be no doubt
about the proposition, in law, that, while tackling the challenge, civil
and constitutional rights of citizens cannot be compromised. However,
while examining whether, in a particular case, such compromise has,
or has not, taken place, it is as much incumbent on the citizen, as on
the Court, to adopt an approach which is not hyper-legalistic, but is
pragmatic and practical, and would not disturb the efforts to tide over
the pandemic, in which efforts, rewardingly, the nation has come
together as a whole. Certain inconveniences, and difficulties are bound
to arise in the process. It is incumbent, on each one of us, to contribute
our efforts in this direction, and to forbear from rushing to Court, at
the drop of a hat. Of course, were the efforts, to battle the COVID-
2019 pandemic, to actually breach any civil or constitutional rights of
citizens, it would be the duty of the Court to step in and remedy the
situation.
18. In the opinion of this Court, the period of 14 days, stipulated in
the afore-extracted provisions in the Guidelines of 14th March, 2020
and the 2020 Regulations is not mandatory, but is intended to serve as
a general guideline. As of today, there is no certainty of opinion,
regarding the extent of virulence of the COVID-2019 virus, its actual
period of gestation, the period taken for symptoms, in an infected
person, to manifest themselves, or the period for which a person, once
infected, remains a potential source of infection to others. The medical
community, the world over, is yet to come to grips with this virus, and
isolate its individual characteristics.
19. In this background, this Court is unwilling to hold that in each
and in every case, the period of home quarantine must stand limited to
14 days, and no more.
20. At the same time, keeping a person under unjustified home
quarantine also has deleterious civil consequences.
21. Keeping in mind the competing interests of public interest and
individual prejudice - of which, needless to say, the former must be
accorded precedence - and the desirability of ensuring smooth and
unhindered efforts, by the executive administration, to tackle the
COVID-2019 pandemic, this Court is of the opinion that, at this
juncture, the interests of justice would be abundantly protected by a
direction, to the effect that if any person, who does not display
COVID-2019 symptoms, and has not tested positive for the COVID-
2019 virus, is home quarantined for over 14 days, he shall have a
right to represent to the authorities against such continued quarantine
and, if he so represents, the authorities would be bound either to lift
the quarantine forthwith, or to explain, to the person concerned, as
expeditiously as possible and without any undue delay, the reason for
keeping him in home quarantine for over 14 days.
22. Needless to say, should the person continue to be aggrieved, the
right to seek legal redress would remain preserved.
23. These directives, if followed, would, this court is sanguine,
substantially reduce litigation, by persons who claim to be aggrieved
on account of prolonged home quarantine.
24. Ms. Trehan has also expressed concern about the fact that the
first notice, dated 14th April, 2020, whereby the petitioner was placed
under home quarantine, did not indicate the date of contact, by her
client, with the pizza delivery boy. She, therefore, prays that the
respondent be directed to incorporate, in all like notices of home
quarantine to be issued in future, the date of contact, by the person
concerned, with the infected individual.
25. This Court does not deem it appropriate to issue any such
direction. There are various grounds on which a person may be placed
under home quarantine, not all of which are necessarily relatable to
her, or his, having come in contact with a person who tested positive
for the COVID-2019 virus. Besides, public disclosure of the date of
contact, in every case of such contact, may not be practically feasible.
In any event, this Court is not convinced that public interest would
warrant mandating such disclosure.
26. However, all notices, placing persons under home quarantine,
have necessarily to indicate the period of home quarantine, as well as
the date from which it is to commence.
27. Ms. Trehan has also pointed out that persons, who are under
home quarantine, are unaware of the officer, who is required to be
contacted, should any exigency arise during the period of home
quarantine.
28. Ms. Shobhana Takiar, learned counsel appearing for the
respondent, submits, in response thereto, that a helpline number, on
which persons, in home quarantine, can establish contact with the
Ministry/Departments, would be displayed on the official website of
the Government of NCT of Delhi (GNCTD).
29. The GNCTD is directed to ensure that this is done forthwith.
30. The writ petition also ventilates a grievance against the Warning
Notice, dated 20th April, 2020, issued to the petitioner, which already
stands extracted hereinabove.
31. In my view, this grievance is not amenable to adjudication in
writ proceedings.
32. In its counter-affidavit, the GNCTD has annexed a complaint,
dated 18th April, 2020, from the Housing Society in which the
petitioner resides, addressed to the DM (South), in vernacular. On the
basis thereof, it appears that two warnings, dated 20th April, 2020 and
23rd April, 2020, were issued, to the petitioner, by the District
Magistrate. In this scenario, this Court forbears from expressing any
opinion on the warning given to the petitioner, as it involves a
disputed issue of fact. In any event, no serious civil consequences can
be said to have visited to the petitioner, as a consequence of the said
Notice, especially given the tenor thereof.
33. This Court, therefore, refrains from expressing any opinion,
thereon, in the present case.
34. The submission, of Ms Trehan, to the effect that the Warning
Notice dated 20th April, 2020, was issued in violation of the principles
of natural justice, and that, prior to the issuance thereof, the petitioner
should have been visited with a Show Cause Notice, in my view,
merits outright rejection. The notice dated 20th April, 2020 was merely
a notice issued pursuant to complaints against the petitioner, and
directing him to desist from breaching the quarantine imposed on him.
It did not propose any action against the petitioner, civil or criminal.
No serious civil consequences can, therefore, be said to have ensued to
the petitioner, as a result of the issuance thereof.
35. Besides, it would be eminently inimical to public interest, to
direct that every person, found to have breached the quarantine or the
lockdown, was required to be issued a Show Cause Notice even before
issuance of a warning to him, to desist from doing so. Besides the fact
that the law does not require issuance of any such notice before
issuing a warning, any such mandate, if issued, would have the
potential of seriously derailing the efforts, of the executive
administration, to enforce discipline during the period of
lockdown/quarantine.
36. Needless to say, of course, were the warning to be followed by
any civil or criminal action, adverse to the alleged violator of the
quarantine/lockdown, such action would have, necessarily, to conform
to due process, as ordained by law in that regard.
37. One is reminded of the following aphorism delivered by the
Supreme Court2, albeit in the context of economic policy and its
implementation by the executive:
"It needs no emphasis that complex executive decisions in
economic matters are necessarily empiric and based on
experimentation. Its validity cannot be tested on any rigid
principles or the application of any straitjacket formula. The
Court while adjudging the validity of an executive decision in
economic matters must grant a certain measure of freedom or
play in the joints to the executive."
In formulating, and implementing, its policy to deal with the COVID-
2019 pandemic, which has befuddled the entire global community, the
executive administration is, similarly, traversing uncharted territory.
The executive must, in such a circumstance, be afforded the requisite
play in the joints, so as to formulate, and implement, its policy, as
meaningfully and efficiently as possible. Absent any legal or
constitutional infraction, therefore, Courts have necessarily to be slow
in subjecting executive action, taken in the context of the COVID-
2019 crisis, to searching judicial scrutiny.
38. Subject to the above observations and clarifications, this writ
Vasavi Engineering College Parents' Assn v. State of Gujarat, (2019) 7 SCC 172
petition is disposed of, with no orders as to costs.
C.HARI SHANKAR, J
MAY 11, 2020
dsn
