Restriction On Unvaccinated Persons For Leaving From Their Houses, Violative Of Articles 14,19 And 21: Guwahati HC

BACKGROUND

• The Mizoram Government on 29th June 2021 declared the Standard Operating Procedures for the movement of vaccinated and non-vaccinated within the state during the ongoing pandemic.
• The SOPs require all the persons to be vaccinated and the non-vaccinated people will not be allowed to leave their homes to obtain essential goods, earn their livelihoods, drive public/commercial transport, etc.
• Mizoram has been reporting around 200 Covid-19 cases every day for the past few days and the test positivity rate is around 6% according to the State Health Department.

CASE BEFORE THE HIGH COURT

• Clauses 5 (2), 6 (1), 6 (5) of SOPs dated 29 June 2021 were challenged before the Court on the grounds that they were violative of rights given to people.
• The other issue that came before the Court was the requirement of a pass or permit from the Deputy Commissioner, Aizawl for travelling outside Mizoram.

SUBMISSIONS

• The Additional Advocate General, Mr. C Zoramchhana, on behalf of the State mentioned that the State Government has made arrangements for mass vaccination of people but it is unsure as to how many months will it take to vaccinate the targeted population.
• He also stated that restrictions imposed by the State are reasonable that is made in the larger public interest.
• Mr. Zochhuana, the amicus curiae submitted that restrictions imposed by the state are not reasonable restrictions as mentioned under Article 19(2) of the Constitution.
• He further submitted that restrictions mentioned under SOPs discriminate among vaccinated and non-vaccinated people and hence are violative of Article 14.

OBSERVATION OF THE COURT

• The Division Bench comprising of Justice Michael Zothankhum and Justice Nelson Sailo observed that there can be any number of reasons for a person to leave home and the challenged clause put them under house arrest and they are violative of Article 21 of the Constitution while the vaccinated persons are allowed to leave hence creating discrimination and it becomes arbitrary.
• The Court also observed that clauses 6(1) and 6(5) of the SOP, discriminate at large between vaccinated and non-vaccinated individuals from earning their livelihood.
• The Bench mentioned that there is nothing to show that vaccinated people cannot carry the virus or they cannot be spreaders and both vaccinated and non-vaccinated people can be get affected by COVID 19, therefore, the clauses are unjustified, unreasonable, and arbitrary.
• In conclusion, the High Court held that SOPs issued by the Mizoram State government are arbitrary, illegal and violative of Articles 14, 19 and 21 as they discriminate among the people and restrict them from earning their livelihoods.

What do you think of this case?