Saurabh Sharma Vs Sub Divisional Magistrate: Delhi HC Holds Wearing Of Mask Mandatory Even While Alone In The Vehicle

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 7th April 2021

JUDGES: Justice Prathiba M Singh

PARTIES

• Saurabh Sharma (Petitioner)
• Sub – Divisional Magistrate (Respondent)

SUMMARY: The Delhi High Court stated that it is compulsory to wear a mask even when the person is alone in the car as the court stated that ‘Mask is like a Suraksha Kavach’.

AN OVERVIEW

1. The High Court of Delhi in the present case has clubbed together four petitions and combined them to form a single petition.
2. The petitioner claimed that he was challaned despite having his mouth and nose wrapped with a scarf while driving in his car. His lawyer further told the court that the challan does not mention the date and time of the offense or even the offense itself. The challan was issued by the sub-inspector, the challan booklet was pre-stamped and signed by the magistrate and no receipt was issued to him for the amount he paid for the challan.

ISSUES

The following issue was analyzed by the court-

• “Whether it is compulsory to wear a mask even when the person is alone in the car?

IMPORTANT PROVISIONS

• Sec.2 of Epidemic Diseases Act: Powers of Central Government.
• Sec. 3(l) of the Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products (Prohibition of Advertisement and Regulation of Trade and Commerce, Production, Supply, and Distribution) Act, 2003: Definition of the public place.
• Sec. 188 of the Indian Penal Code: Disobedience to order duly promulgated by the public servant.
• Sec. 133 of the Criminal Procedure Code: Conditional order for removal of the nuisance.
• Sec. 195 of the Criminal Procedure Code: Prosecution for contempt of lawful authority of public servants, for offences against public justice, and offenses relating to documents given in evidence.
• Sec. 22(2) of Disaster Management Act: Power to issue guidelines in various forms to ensure non-spreading of disease and mitigation of disease.
• Sec. 24 of Disaster Management Act: Powers and functions of State Executive Committee in the event of threatening disaster situation.
• Sec. 35 of Disaster Management Act: Central Government to take measures.

ANALYSIS OF THE JUDGEMENT

1. The counsel for the appellants contended that the Regulations of 2020 are in contrast with the April Order. The counsel contended that while the April Order specifically prescribed that wearing face masks in vehicles is necessary, the Regulations of 2020 generally deal with the wearing of face masks or covers in public places.
2. The counsel for the appellants contended that since a car occupied by one person would not be a public place, hence a mask need not be worn.
3. The counsel appearing for the GNCTD placed reliance upon the provisions of Sec. 2 of the Epidemic Diseases Act, which empowered the State Government to prescribe temporary regulations to be observed by the public during times threatened by the outbreak of any treacherous epidemic diseases, which is considered necessary to prevent the outbreak or spread of such disease.
4. The counsel appearing for the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare contended that ‘Public Health and Sanitation’ falls in List 2 of the VII Schedule of the Constitution of India and is, therefore, the exclusive responsibility is of each State.
5. The counsel further submitted that insofar as the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare was concerned, it has not issued any guidelines directing people to wear masks while driving alone in a vehicle. Insofar, as the implementation of the guidelines issued in respect of disaster management is concerned, the same is implemented in the local context by the State Executive Committee under Disaster Management Act, 2005.
6. The court, on hearing the arguments made by the appellants and the respondents, held that a person traveling in a vehicle or car even if he is alone could be exposed to the virus in various ways.
7. The court held that the said person may have visited a market, or workplace, or hospital, or busy street, before entering the car or vehicle. Such a person may be required to keep windows open for ventilation.
8. The court held that in the context of the pandemic and wearing of face masks being compulsory, all requisite measures have to be taken by the authorities for enforcement of the same.
9. The court also held that all the four appellants in these cases, being advocates/lawyers ought to recognize and assist in the implementation of measures to contain the pandemic, rather than questioning the same.
10. Based on the aforementioned views, the court held that it did not find any merit in the writ petitions and dismissed the same.

CONCLUSION

A single-judge bench of Justice Prathiba M Singh dismissed writ petitions questioning the imposition of fines by the Delhi government on the people who were not wearing masks while traveling alone in their vehicles. The Court said that the mask acts like a "Suraksha kavach" which protects both the person wearing it and those around. The court further said that "Scientists and international governments have advised wearing of a mask. The challenge of the pandemic was huge and the wearing of face masks is important whether a person is vaccinated or not".

Click here to download the original copy of the judgement

WHAT ARE YOUR THOUGHTS ON THIS DECISION? Are the reasons balanced? What is a possible solution to COVID mismanagement?