The High-Powered Committee of the Delhi High Court met on Tuesday to discuss affirmative and effective steps to prevent a Covid-19 outbreak inside jails and for ensuring social distancing by identifying and determining the class or categories of prisoners, who can again be released on interim bail or parole.

The Committee, under the chairpersonship of Justice Vipin Sanghi, was constituted for determining the class/category of prisoners, who can be released on interim bail/parole, depending not only upon the severity of the offence, but also upon the nature of the offence and/or upon any other relevant factor, and for such period, as it may deem appropriate.

Accordingly, this Committee in its meeting dated February 17, 2021, based on the improved situation of Covid-19 in Delhi NCR; and taking cognizance of order dated September 30, 2020 passed by the Government of India regarding Unlock-5 effective from October 15, 2020, and also considering the Office Order dated January 14, 2021 of High Court, whereby all the Courts, including the High Court of Delhi and Courts subordinate thereto have resumed functioning through physical mode/video conferencing mode, resolved not to recommend further extension of interim bail to the undertrial prisoners (UTPs).

As such, all 3499 UTPs enlarged on interim bail, who had not been admitted to regular bail, either by the court concerned, or the Superior Courts, were asked to surrender back to the Jail, including 1,184 convicts released on Emergency Parole.

At present, the entire country in general, and Delhi in particular, is engulfed by the second wave of Covid-19, which according to medical and expert opinion, is more virulent and fatal in comparison to last year’s strain.

In a matter of few weeks, this second wave has left everyone “gasping for air”. It has led everyone struggle to breathe or with asphyxia, which is the most terrifying human experience. Breathing fresh air, which one takes for granted and used to do more than a dozen times every minute, in the present circumstances has turned into an ordeal.

Right to Life under Article 21 is the most precious Fundamental Right of every citizen of India. It unconditionally embraces even an undertrial/convict walled off from the society, the Committee said.

It held that the situation, as observed by this Committee in its last meeting, has now taken a 360 degree turn and is becoming alarming with each day. Accordingly, there is an imminent and urgent need to take affirmative and effective steps to prevent the outbreak of Covid-19 inside jails and for ensuring social distancing inside prisons by identifying and determining the class/categories of prisoners, who can once again be released on interim bails/paroles.

Kanwal Jeet Arora, Member Secretary, DSLSA, apprised the Committee about PILs filed in the Delhi High Court, seeking directions to the Committee for laying down the criteria to release the UTPs on interim bail and also to decongest jails in view of the second Covid-19 wave.

The Committee was informed by the DG Prisons that out of total 249 inmates found to be Covid-19 positive, 63 have been isolated in jail itself, 67 have been lodged in Central Jail Hospital (Tihar), 37 in Central Jail Hospital (Mandoli), 16 in Burari Hospital, 14 in GTB hospital, five in LNJP Hospital, four in DDU Hospital, one each in AIIMS and Max Hospital; whereas 41 such inmates have been released.

DG Sandeep Goel informed the Committee that in terms of the resolution adopted vide meeting dated June 20, 2020 as well as in subsequent meetings, Jail Administration is taking extra precautions with respect to inmates who are more than 55 years of age, so that they are not immuno-compromised. The DG Prisons has further assured the Committee that they shall continue doing the needful.

He informed that in view of resolutions passed by this Committee in the last meeting, they are carrying out Rapid Tests for jail staff, paramilitary staff and others, as per ICMR guidelines. He further informed that thermal screening of jail staff is also being conducted, before letting them enter jail premises. He informed that jail staff are cautioned to wear mask and to maintain social distance, while interacting with each other, as well as with inmates.

The Committee suggested that as the new variant of Covid-19 is more virulent, therefore, the jail staff as well as inmates be directed and provided with double masking – one surgical mask and one cloth mask. The DG (Prisons) assured that he shall provide these masks to jail staff as well as jail inmates and shall ensure that inmates and jail staff use double masking at all times.

On the aspect of isolation cells and temporary jails, it was decided thus:

“In an eventuality of UTPs/Convicts surrendering in Delhi jails or sent after arrest, pursuant to any order passed by the Court of Law, the Chair suggested that all such UTPs/Convicts may be housed initially for a period of 14 days in the Temporary Jail before sending them in the concerned Jail. The DG Prisons assured the Chair to comply with this suggestion. It is made clear that fresh male inmates who are between 18 to 21 years of age and fresh women inmates shall continue to be kept in separate “Isolation Cells” at Jail No 5 and 6 respectively at Tihar and Jail No 16 Mandoli, in terms of the earlier resolution.”

The Committee Chairperson made enquiries regarding usage of “Oxygen Concentration Machines” in Jail Hospital as well as regarding “Rapid Antigen Test Facility” for the inmates. The DG Prisons has informed that they have procured four “Oxygen Concentration Machines,” whereafter the Delhi Health Department has also supplied them 15 “Oxygen Concentration Machines”.

He informed that jail staff was declared “Front Line Workers” and thus was directed to be vaccinated in the First Phase of Vaccine Drive against COVID-19. He further informed that more than 85 percent of jail staff has been vaccinated.

“Members of the Committee have deliberated upon this issue and have resolved that all the jail inmates as well as jail staff are required to be vaccinated at the earliest, so that the spread of COVID-19 inside the jail premises can be curtailed,” the Committee resolved.

The Committee said that all these factors cumulatively suggest that there is an emergent requirement of identifying class/category of prisoners who can be released on interim bail/emergency parole.

The Members of the Committee discussed and deliberated upon the proposed category of prisoners, who may be considered for grant of interim bail for 90 days in view of the circumstances in which we are in, preferably on ‘Personal Bond’:

(1)  Inmates undergoing Civil Imprisonment

(2) Under trial prisoners (UTPs) who are facing trial in a case which prescribes a maximum sentence of 7 years or less wherein he/she is in custody for a period of 15 days or more

(3) Under trial prisoners (UTPs)/Remand Prisoners (with respect to whom, Charge sheets are yet to be filed), who are in custody for 15 days or more, facing trial in a case which prescribes a maximum sentence of 7 years or less

(4) Under trial prisoners (UTPs), who are senior citizens more than 60 years of age and are in custody for three months or more, facing trial in a case which prescribes a maximum sentence of 10 years or less

(5)  Under trial prisoners (UTPs), who are less than 60 years of age and are in custody for six months or more, facing trial in a case which prescribes a maximum sentence of 10 years or less; subject to the condition that he should not be involved in any other case which prescribes punishment of more than 7 years

(6) Under trial prisoners (UTPs), who are suffering from HIV, Cancer, Chronic Kidney Dysfunction(UTPs requiring Dialysis), Hepatitis B or C, Asthma, and TB and are in custody, facing trial in a case which prescribes a maximum sentence of 10 years or less and are not involved in multiple cases

(7)  Under trial prisoners (UTPs) who are suffering from HIV, Cancer, Chronic Kidney Dysfunction (UTPs requiring Dialysis), Hepatitis B or C, Asthma, and TB and are in custody for a period of three months or more and facing trial in a case which prescribes punishment of 10 years upto life imprisonment and are not involved in multiple cases

(8) Under trial prisoners (UTPs) facing trial for offence under Section 304 IPC and are in jail for more than six months with no involvement in any other case

(9)  Under trial prisoners (UTPs) facing trial in a case under Section 307 IPC and are in jail for more than six months; subject to the condition that he should not be involved in any other case which prescribes punishment of more than 7 years

(10) Under trial prisoners (UTPs) (who are related as spouse of the deceased) facing trial for a case under 304B IPC and are in jail for more than one year with no involvement in any other case

Read Also: Delhi HC issues notice in plea of 85-year-old woman seeking IGST exemption for oxygen concentrator

(11) Under trial prisoners (UTPs) (who are related as father-in-law, mother-in-law, brothers-in-law, sisters -in -law of the deceased) facing trial for offence under Section 304B IPC and are in jail for more than six years with no involvement in any other case

The Committee suggested that the Commissioner of Police may ensure compliance of Arnesh Kumar Jugdment’s guidelines and the DSLSA may be directed to conduct sensitization programs of Senior Police officers online.

Source: ILNS

Two courts of Joint Registrar (Judicial) to take up matters through physical mode from October 12

New Delhi (ILNS): The Delhi High Court has extended its limited functioning till November 30, in view of the prevailing pandemic situation.

The office order stated: “In view of the prevailing situation of spread of Coronavirus (2019-nCOV) pandemic in the NCT of Delhi, this court has been pleased to order that the present system of hearing the matters before this court shall continue up to 30.11.2020.”

In addition to this, the order further stated that the matters instituted in the year 2018, 2019, and 2020 shall also be taken up as per the roster with effect from November 17.

From October 12 two courts of the Joint Registrar (Judicial) will take up matters through physical mode. However, others will continue to hold court through video conferencing as per the roster to be notified on the website.

The Joint Registrar’s courts will also record evidence in cases of urgency or where any direction for expeditious/time-bound disposal has been received from the Delhi HC or the Supreme Court. The recording of evidence may be done either by physical or video conferencing as the case may be. 

-ILNS

New Delhi: The Delhi High Court today dismissed a petition seeking directions to conduct the Common Law Admission Test (CLAT) 2020 as a home-based online test in view of the pandemic situation due to the COVID-19 outbreak.

A single-judge bench comprising Justice Jayant Nath, while hearing the petition through video conferencing, noted that the guidelines issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs asking people to stay at home are at best an advisory.

The petition has been file by V. Govind Ramanan, a CLAT applicant, seeking direction to quash the notification issued by the consortium regarding the CLAT 2020 examination, stating that the examinations being conducted on a centre basis will be in violation of his Right to Life and Right to Health as provided under Article 21 of the constitution.

The counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that movement of the people under the category at risks like the elderly, children, and others is being continued to be restricted by the government.

The counsel appearing for the Consortium of the National Law Universities contended that the home-based test for 78,000-plus students is not possible as it may compromise the test and may also be manipulated by the individuals appearing or the coaching centres.

The consortium further assured that the test would be conducted in the safest possible way and for the places with a restriction on movement, the admit card would be considered as a pass for the movement of the students.

The bench observed:

Read Also: SC rules S 50 of NDPS Act not applicable to search of bag of accused

The bench dismissed the petition stating:

-India Legal Bureau

The rural economic distress has pushed approximately 24 million migrants back to their original places of work, but they face huge problems. If they find themselves back in unhygienic and miserable conditions in cities, we will end up perpetuating endless cycles of disease, displacement and poverty.

By Rahul Suresh Sapkal

The outbreak of the pandemic in India and subsequent containment measures such as prolonged lockdowns brought the entire economy to a grinding halt. The fallout has been immense and is likely to have long-lasting impacts, particularly on the lives and livelihoods of marginalised communities and people living in poverty.

By the end of the lockdown phase, according to an ActionAid survey, 78 percent of workers in urban areas and 59 percent of workers in rural areas lost their livelihood. The loss of housing emerged as a major issue during the lockdown, which perhaps precipitated the decision of millions of workers to leave their city workplaces and go back to their home towns and villages, a majority of them in Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, Rajasthan, Maharashtra, and Madhya Pradesh. According to the 2011 census, these are the top five origin states for inter-state migrants and account for nearly 55 percent of the total migrants. In addition to these states, Odisha, Jharkhand and West Bengal have also seen a high outflow of migrants.

The influx of a high number of workers in a short period of time exerted additional strain on the infrastructure and services in rural areas. In the absence of employment opportunities in the non-farm sector, there was an over-reliance on agriculture. With agrarian wages stagnant and farmers struggling with high input costs, low prices and frequent crop losses due to climate-induced uncertainties, absorption of these workers into the agriculture sector was extremely difficult. Similarly, as demand for jobs under the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (MGNREGS) shot up astronomically, there were concerns about adequate job creation even with higher budget allocation.

According to the Ministry of Rural Development, in the month of May 2020, 46 lakh households were provided work as compared to 1.7 crore in April of 2019, a decline of 76 percent. In fact, this figure is the lowest for May since 2013. A bulk of the employment provided was only in a few states.

Of the 46 lakh households who were provided employment in May, about 57 percent were in only two states Andhra Pradesh and Chhattisgarh. According to the Ministry of Rural Development, 19 out of 34 states reported to have demanded jobs under the Scheme provided work to less than 10,000 households, much lower than the previous year. Some states like Telangana did not record any work at all. Even large states like Uttar Pradesh and Maharashtra provided employment to only 1,86,000 and 1,43,000 households, respectively, by the end of May.

Based on our fieldwork during the lockdown, it is observed that the labour market absorption rate in rural areas was much lower for high-skilled workers. As a result, they were voluntarily unemployment and those workers with fewer skill levels who were absorbed in the rural areas were barely able to survive. Moreover, the addition of male workers in rural areas put tremendous pressure on women workers who were engaged in the farm sector, forcing many to make way for their male counterparts.

The rural economy distress has now pushed migrants back to their destination locations. According to Centre for Monitoring Indian Economy (2020), it is estimated that around 24 million workers have returned to their original places of work. A majority are from Uttar Pradesh, followed by Bihar, West Bengal, Odisha and Madhya Pradesh.

PLIGHT OF WORKERS

On arrival, all migrant workers need to undertake the mandatory 14-day home quarantine. According to ActionAid (2020), a little over 42 percent of the migrant workers were staying in rented housing, followed by 24 percent in their own semi-pucca houses, and 21 percent in their own kutcha houses. Around six percent said that they were staying in community housing, and less than one percent had been provided housing by their employers. In the same survey, 68 percent of the workers said they had only one toilet in their homes. More than 19 percent said that they were dependent on public or community toilets and six percent reported that they did not have access to any toilet facility.

It is also observed that many employers are asking for Covid-19 test results from workers and the costs of getting these tests done is either borne by the workers or the amount is deducted from their wages. Secondly, the costs of home quarantine have been externalised on to the workers. This has increased the search for jobs in the labour market.

According to ILO (2013), cities rely heavily on migrant workers for their growth and sustenance. Yet, urban spaces have failed spectacularly in providing a quarantine shelter, protection and dignity to migrant workers and other informal sector workers during the unlock phase. A majority of migrant workers who work in the informal economy and are dependent on petty trade and casual labour do not have proper housing (NSSO 2018).

All migrant workers live in slums, jhuggi-jhopdi clusters, informal settlements, or at their worksites. These places are typically overcrowded with no access to clean water or sanitation facilities. It is hardly surprising then that slums, unauthorised colonies and other forms of informal settlements have become hotspots for infections in cities. A mandatory home quarantine/physical distancing is an improbable proposition in these spaces.

They also lack critical health infrastructure in the form of primary health centres and dispensaries.

According to the ActionAid report (2020), almost 60 percent of the migrants said that they had to vacate their housing after the lockdown. There was also an alarming increase in the level of food insecurity and a decline in water consumption. This was partly due to restrictions on movement which is taking place in many cities but is also largely indicative of the lack of food reserves in poor households and their low levels of enrolment and access to welfare schemes, such as the public distribution system.

Migrant workers are particularly susceptible to being left out of the schemes which require proof of residence or linking of multiple documents. As cities gradually open up for business, the return of migrant workers is contingent on greater public investment in improving their living conditions and access to healthcare and other services.

BEYOND THE UNLOCK PHASE

There needs to be an urgent focus on rebuilding the livelihoods of migrant informal workers. These efforts should be centred on creating decent work with dignified minimum wages and ensuring that socially marginalised communities and women workers can access the work created. There is also a need to ensure that marginalised communities have secure access to food, shelter, water and pre-job testing facilities. There must also be an emphasis on improving living conditions or informal workers through social housing and workers’ hostels which can provide them a safe and secure quarantine facility as soon as they arrive in the cities. There is also a need to improve their working conditions by strengthening and implementing labour laws and creating suitable protective mechanisms, including those which enable safe migration and reduce the risk of trafficking and bondage.

Lastly, all migrant workers who have returned to cities must be provided with meaningful social security and affordable and quality public services, including education and healthcare. If this is not done and workers are forced to move due to distress, only to find themselves back in unhygienic and miserable conditions in cities, we would only end up perpetuating cycles of disease, displacement and poverty.

—The author is Assistant Professor, School of Management and Labour Studies, Tata Institute of Social Sciences, Mumbai

Lead Picture: UNI

In furtherance of its last order, The Administrative and General Supervision Committee of the Delhi High Court on Friday extended the limited functioning of courts till 14^th June 2020, in view of the extended lockdown to contain the effect of Covid-19 outbreak.

It has further been ordered that as per ‘earlier directions, all the Benches shall take up urgent matters through videoconferencing as per Roster notified on 20.05.2020 and the notes contained therein.

The order has also stated that the matters pending in the Delhi High Court from 1^st June to 12^th June 2020 would stand adjourned as mentioned below:

• 1^st June 2020 will be heard on 3^rd July 2020;
• 2^nd June 2020 will be heard on 16^th July 2020;
• 3^rd June 2020 will be heard on 17^th July 2020;
• 4^th June 2020 will be heard on 27^th July 2020;
• 5^th June 2020 will be heard on 28^th July 2020;
• 6^th June 2020 will be heard on 18^th July 2020;
• 8^th June 2020 will be heard on 29^th July 2020;
• 9^th June 2020 will be heard on 30^th July 2020;
• 10^th June 2020 will be heard on 31^st July 2020;
• 11^th June 2020 will be heard on 4^th August 2020; and
• 12^th June 2020 will be heard on 5^th August 2020.

The matters listed in the subordinate courts during this period would be adjourned by the concerned courts and information in this regard would be uploaded on the district court website.

-India Legal Bureau