The Madras High Court on Wednesday rejected a public interest litigation petition which questioned the authority of the government to curtail the movement of all people by way of a lockdown, instead of stopping with quarantining those infected with COVID-19, and directed the litigant to pay costs of ₹50,000 to the Chief Justice’s Relief Fund.
Justices R. Subbiah and Krishnan Ramasamy dismissed the petition filed by M. Immanuvel, a book stall owner from Kovilampakkam near here, and directed him to deposit the costs within four weeks. Holding that the petitioner had wasted judicial time, they also directed the High Court Registry to list the case after a month for reporting compliance.
Though the petitioner’s counsel K. Sakthivel argued that the term ‘lockdown’ could not be found in any law of the land and hence it was impermissible to curtail the freedom of movement of all, the judges said, that the power to impose a lockdown was very much available to the Centre as well as the State government under the relevant statutes.
Authoring the verdict, Justice Subbiah pointed out that Section 2 of the Epidemic Diseases Act of 1897 empowers the State governments to take special measures and prescribe regulations to prevent the outbreak of epidemics. Similarly, Section 35 of the Disaster Management Act of 2005 empowers the Centre to take necessary measures.
The 2005 Act defines ‘disaster’ to mean any catastrophe, mishap, calamity or grave occurrence in any area, arising from natural or man-made causes, or by accident or negligence resulting in substantial loss of life or human suffering or damage to and destruction of property or environment and was of such a nature or magnitude as to be beyond coping capacity.
“Therefore, it is not as if the respondents have imposed the lockdown without any authority of law. The power to impose lockdown is very much available. Lockdown is one of the measures taken up by the respondents to curb and restrict the spread of the pandemic. Therefore, the imposition of the lockdown… cannot be said to be arbitrary,” the Bench observed.
