The Delhi High Court on Friday dismissed with cost a petition by a law student challenging the May 30 order of the Centre by which the lockdown was extended in containment zones and reopening of activities was done in a phased manner outside such zones.
A Bench of Justice Hima Kohli and Justice Subramonium Prasad said the Central government’s decision of phased reopening of lockdown was not taken in haste and it was done to ensure a proper balance between containing the spread of COVID-19 pandemic and making it certain that people are not forced to starvation.
The High Court imposed a penalty of ₹20,000 to Arun Aggarwal, the petitioner in the case, noting that the petition “is completely misconceived and has been filed only to gain publicity”.
ADVERTISEMENT
“He [Aggawral] has not cared to read the judgments relating to public interest litigations and the limits on the court while exercising its power of judicial review on policy matters,” the Bench said.
“Nothing has been shown as to how the impugned order is so arbitrary or is based on such irrelevant consideration that it deserves to be struck down as being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution,” it added. It said that the lockdown has resulted in loss of jobs for lakhs of people. People were forced to walk considerable distance during the lockdown and stand in long queues at food distribution centres just to have two square meals a day, it said.
“Several have gone hungry and were not able to get one meal. Many were left shelterless,” but a “series of orders have been passed starting from the month of March, 2020, to tackle the situation and decisions have been taken by the government to ensure minimum hardship to the people,” it said.
ADVERTISEMENT
“The reopening has been directed in a phased manner and is not a decision that appears to have been taken in haste,” the High Court said, adding: “If it is found that the rate of infection is going up, they can always review their decision and impose curbs, depending upon the situation.”