Top court stays order on curbs in UP cities
Allahabad HC’s order for near-lockdown in 5 cities unwarranted, UP govt tells SC; administration announces weekend curfew across state
NEW DELHI/LUCKNOW: The Supreme Court on Tuesday stayed the Allahabad high court order, imposing near-lockdown restrictions in five Covid-19 hit districts of Uttar Pradesh till April 26.
A bench, headed by Chief Justice of India SA Bobde, ordered for an interim stay after the state government moved an appeal against the high court order passed a day ago.
Solicitor general Tushar Mehta, representing the UP government, complained that the judicial direction regarding complete lockdown in Lucknow, Prayagraj, Kanpur Nagar, Varanasi and Gorakhpur were not warranted since the state was mindful of the situations and was already taking all possible steps to contain the spread of Covid-19.
“Several steps are taken in that direction and we can satisfy the conscience of this court. Some of them, we are already doing and we don’t object to some other. But it may not be the right approach to order lockdown in five cities because there are several other factors that also need to be considered,” argued the S-G.
Accepting Mehta’s submission, the bench, which also included justices AS Bopanna and V Ramasubramanian, ordered an interim stay on the high court order, recording Mehta’s statement that the state government has issued several directions to contain the spread of coronavirus disease and was taking adequate precautions at their own.
At the same time, the apex court directed that the “state government shall immediately report to the high court about the steps it has taken and proposes to take in the immediate future within a period of one week in view of the current pandemic”. The court, however, decided to keep the matter pending before it and appointed senior advocate PS Narasimha as the amicus curiae to assist it in the case after two weeks.
Following the HC order on Monday, the five cities in UP had be placed under curbs from last night till April 26 to arrest the spread of the coronavirus disease. The HC directed the state government to close all establishments, private or government-run, in these cities while exempting only those offering essential services.
The order was passed by a bench of justices Siddhartha Varma and Ajit Kumar. It noted the recent Covid-19 surge in these cities has “virtually incapacitated” Uttar Pradesh’s entire medical infrastructure.
The state government rushed to appeal against this order before the Supreme Court. Advocate Rajat Nair drafted the appeal overnight and the S-G secured an urgent hearing from the CJI on Tuesday itself.
The state government, in its appeal, said that although the intention behind the HC order was laudable and salutary, the HC has failed to appreciate that it encroached upon the executive domain and has passed a mandamus, which was incapa
ble of being executed at the present stage, and if executed, would result into panic, fear and law and order situation in UP.
“There was no empirical data before the Hon’ble High Court to compel it to arrive at a conclusion that lockdown/total curfew for a week was to the only way to break the chain of Covid-19 infection,” stated the petition, adding the modalities which needed to be worked upon before imposing a lockdown essentially fell within the domain of executives.
The state added: “The impugned order, which is passed without even considering the steps taken by the petitioner, is therefore liable to be set aside for this reason alone as it not only encroaches upon the executive domain but effectively ventures into the arena of governance by breaching the salutary principles of separation of powers between the judiciary and executive.”
The UP government also contested the observations made by the HC about spending money on conducting the local body polls and prioritising it over the public health, saying these remarks were not based on cogent evidence.
“The said observations are at best founded on hearsay narrative which is circulated for extraneous reasons on social and other form of media. It is submitted that holding of elections is an essential democratic function of the State. Furthermore, the said elections were conducted as per the orders passed by this Hon’ble Court and in a manner decided by the election commission of India,” said the plea.