Jharkhand HC Dismisses PIL Contesting E-Pass Requirement During Lockdown

What Are The Facts Of The Case

• A PIL was filed in the Jharkhand High Court against the requirement of an E-Pass for movement during the lockdown.
• On April 18, 2021, the State of Jharkhand issued an order in the form of a guideline under Section 18(2) of the Disaster Management Act imposing movement restrictions during the lockdown. The Order mandated that an E-pass be required for any movement within the State.
• The order also stated that for any type of movement by personal vehicle, the person must have an E-pass, a valid photo identity card, and a ticket in the case of air/railway travel, which must be downloaded from the website created for the purpose.
• It was also stated that an e-pass is not required for movements related to medical purposes or movements related to last rites, with the additional provision

Disaster Management Act and Law- A Human Law Perspective

Petitioner’s Argument

• The petitioner's counsel contended that imposing such conditions by issuing an e-pass to move was arbitrary for a variety of reasons, including:

1. Even if a person chooses to use his vehicle to purchase groceries, milk, vegetables, fruits, and other quaint essential daily items for his basic survival, he must first obtain an e-pass.
2. If a retail shopkeeper chooses his vehicle for home delivery of foods, he must obtain an e-pass; similarly, if a shopkeeper wants to purchase necessary items for the supply of the same to the general public and chooses his vehicle for the same purpose, he must obtain an e-pass.
3. There have been cases where the entire family member is covid positive and they are receiving food/milk/medicine, etc., with the assistance of distant relatives who used their vehicle to assist their family member.
4. If the people of the state are only allowed to perform necessary activities and are also required to obtain an e-pass, it is unjust.
5. If a person is forced to disclose every activity to the government, this amounts to a violation of his or her right to privacy.

Respondent Argument

• Advocate General appearing for the State, submitted that the writ petition is nothing more than an attempt to misappropriate the judicial process because the State Government has exercised the jurisdiction conferred under Section 18(2)(d) of the Disaster Management Act, 2005, taking into account the immediate surge of COVID-19 and widespread death as a result of it.

Order of the High Court

• Jharkhand High Court while dismissing a PIL observes that the requirement of E-Pass during Lockdown is reasonable and justifiable for breaking the chain of COVID.

Jharkhand Court discharges ten Indonesian Tablighi Jamaat Attendees from Foreigner's Act charges

Do you think the Jharkhand High Court’s decision to dismiss a PIL was reasonable? Let us know in the comment section below!