The Delhi High Court recently comprising of a bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh remarked that wearing a mask or face cover in a vehicle occupied by either a single person or multiple persons is compulsory in view of the prevailing COVID-19 pandemic. Mask is like a “suraksha kavach” protecting both the person wearing it and those around. (Saurabh Sharma & ors Vs Sub-Divisional Magistrate & Ors)
The Court said, "Scientists and international governments advise wearing of a mask. The challenge of the pandemic was enormous and the wearing of face masks is necessary whether a person is vaccinated or not."
The Court held that a private vehicle moving in a public place, even if occupied by a single person, is a "public place" for the purposes of COVID-19 control.
The Court relied on several WHO guidelines and government notifications that said a person travelling alone in a car could also get exposed to Coronavirus in various ways:
"A person travelling in a vehicle or car even if he is alone, could be exposed to the virus in various ways. The person may have visited a market, or workplace, or hospital or a busy street, prior to entering the car or vehicle. Such person may be required to keep windows open for the purposes of ventilation. The vehicle may also be required to be stopped at a traffic signal and the person could purchase any product by rolling down the window. The person may thus,be exposed to a street side vendor. If a person is travelling in the car alone, the said status is not a permanent one. It is merely a temporary phase. There could be other occupants in the car prior to the said phase and post the said phase. There could be elderly family members or children who may be picked from the school or even simply friends or colleagues may travel in the car in the immediate future. Such persons can also be exposed to the virus if the occupant was not wearing the mask. The droplets carrying the virus can infect others even after a few hours after the occupant of the car has released the same.There are several possibilities in which while sitting alone in the car one could be exposed to the outside world. Thus, it cannot be said that merely because the person is travelling alone in a car, the car would not be a public place".
Facts of the Case
The Petitioner was in his car travelling alone, with his mask hanging on his face, from one of his ears. The case here 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. Later he was informed that the non-wearing of a mask by him violates the Delhi Epidemic Diseases Regulations, 2020 and a sum of Rs. 500/- was imposed on him as a fine.
Contention of the Parties
Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the challan for Rs.500/- issued to the Petitioner has been signed by the Executive Magistrate, is without any authority of law. He further submitted that, as the phrase ‘public place’ is not defined in the June Notification, the contents of the April Order cannot be read into the said Notification. Following arguments, he submitted that the private car cannot be considered as a public place.
Mr. Mittal’s submitted that the private car cannot be considered as a public place. Even the definitions of ‘public place’ from any other enactment, such as Section 3(l) of the Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products (Prohibition of Advertisement and Regulation of Trade and Commerce, Production, Supply and Distribution) Act, 2003 and other Acts cannot be read into those orders passed under the EDA. This EDA ought to have defined ‘public place’ specifically
Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that Public Health and Sanitation’ falls in List 2 of the VII Schedule of the Constitution of India and therefore, the exclusive responsibility is of each State. He submits that insofar as the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare is concerned, it has not issued any guidelines directing people to wear masks while driving alone in a vehicle.
Courts Observation & Judgment
The Court held that “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 the immediate risk of exposure to other persons under varying circumstances. Thus, a vehicle even if occupied by only one person would constitute a ‘public place’ and wearing of a mask therein would be compulsory. The wearing of a mask or a face cover in a vehicle, which may be occupied by either a single person or multiple persons is thus, held to be compulsory in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic”.
The Court also observed in the judgment that lawyers had a higher duty to comply with public health protocols, owing to their legal training.
"This Court would also like to add that all the four Petitioners in these cases, being advocates/lawyers ought to recognise and assist in implementation of measures to contain the pandemic,rather than questioning the same. Advocates as a class, owing to their legal training have a higher duty to show compliance especially in extenuating circumstances such as the pandemic. Wearing of masks cannot be made an ego issue.Compliance by advocates and lawyers would encourage the general public to show greater inclination to comply. The duty of advocates and lawyers is of a greater magnitude, especially in the context of the pandemic for enforcement of directives,measures and guidelines issued under the Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897and the Disaster Management Act, 2005".
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Share this Document :Picture Source :
