On Monday, the Delhi High Court held that the Delhi Government will have to give a reason for keeping a person in quarantine for more than 14 days, else lift the lockdown on the person, observing that the period of 14 days is “not mandatory but to serve a general guideline”.

Justice C Hari Shankar said that as of now, there is no certainty of opinion regarding the extent of virulence of the Covid-19 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. It remarked that the medical community, the world over, is yet to come to grips with this virus, and isolate its individual characteristics.

The court was hearing a plea by photojournalist Amit Bhargava, who had sought formulation of quarantine rules for the people while indicating whether the quarantine starts from the day of contact with the infected person or the date of diagnosis of the infected person.

In a judgment passed on Monday, Justice Hari Shankar said it 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” while also observing that unjustified quarantine also has “deleterious civil consequences”.

The Court said in a 22-page judgment:

“……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-19 symptoms, and has not tested positive for the Covid-19 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."

Advocate Shyel Trehan, appearing for the petitioner, contended that the 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.

Following this, counsel for the Delhi government, advocate Shobhana Takiar, submitted that a helpline number, on which persons, under home quarantine, can establish contact with the Ministry/Departments, would be displayed on the official website of the Government of NCT of Delhi (GNCTD).

The judge also said that in formulating and implementing its policy to deal with the Covid-19 pandemic the executive administration is traversing uncharted territory.

The Court said:

“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-19 crisis, to searching judicial scrutiny."

It also said that the Delhi government should have issued a show-cause notice to anyone who is found to have breached the quarantine or the lockdown, even before the issuance of a warning to him to desist from doing so.

The Court further said:

“Besides the fact that the law does not require the 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."

The plea had contended that the petitioner was kept under quarantine beyond the necessary period of 14 days and the authorities had wrongly calculated the quarantine period. He also stated that on April 20 he got a disciplinary notice from the SDM, warning punitive action if he violated the norms.

The plea has stated:

“There appears to be no basis for the calculation of a home quarantine basis for a period of over 30 days from the date of contact with the infected person, either clinically, or in law."

 Source Link

Picture Source :