The Allahabad High Court on Monday said people in Uttar Pradesh have let their guards down and are lax in wearing masks with the reduction in the number of positive Covid-19 cases in the state. 

The division bench of Justices Siddhartha Varma and Ajit Kumar passed this order while hearing a PIL filed by In-re inhuman conditions at quarantine centres and for providing better treatment to individuals tested positive for coronavirus.

“With the decrease in the number of cases countrywide and also with the decrease in the number of corona cases in the city of Prayagraj, we had put our guards down. In the recent past, it has been noticed that the population of the State of Uttar Pradesh as also the Administration, being guided by the fact that the number of cases were lessening, had reduced the strictness vis-a-vis the wearing of masks,”

-the Court observed. 

“From newspaper reports as also from the individuals present in our chamber, we have been informed that life was gradually coming back to normal and people were going back to work etc.

“It has also been informed that while normalcy was returning people were forgetting that they had to protect themselves from the deadly Covid-19 virus. It has also been informed that marriages and other social functions were taking place without observing any of the guidelines framed by the state government for Covid-19,”

-the Court said. 

Fearing that the virus might once again engulf the State of U.P., we once again reiterate our earlier directions:‐ 

(i) People to observe 100 percent masking and police to see that one and all wear masks. 

(ii) Non-wearing of masks should entail penalties as have been enumerated in the Pandemic Act and other relevant laws. 

(iii) Crowding should be stopped with immediate effect. 

(iv) The control of the number of guests in marriages and other social functions etc should be observed and any violation should be strictly punished. 

(v) Schools and colleges where small children go should not be asked to start physical classes. If, however, for any reason schools are physically functioning then all guidelines issued by the State Government should be followed in letter and spirit. 

(vi) Institutions where students above the 10th Class have to compulsorily attend classes, it should be seen that they observe social distancing and that they also wear masks. 

Also Read: Calcutta HC disposes of PIL worried over the conduct of fair, smooth election in West Bengal

(vii) Eateries should see that no food is served in the open, that is to say, people should take covered food in packets and should eat them at their home. 

(viii) Within the restaurants, tables should be laid in such a manner that social distancing is properly observed.

The Allahabad High Court recently rejected a petition seeking a direction to the state of Uttar Pradesh to bring a legislation to compensate the Covid-19 vaccinated individuals in case of loss/ sufferings, noting that a direction cannot be given to legislate law.

The division bench of Justice Sanjay Yadav and Justice Jayant Banerji passed this order while hearing a PIL filed by Gajendra Singh Yadav.

The Court said that drawing inference from the United States of America having National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act 1986 and other countries having similar enactment to ensure compensation to person who suffer any loss/ injury due to side-effect of any vaccine, the petitioner, a law student, vide present PIL seeks direction to the state of Uttar Pradesh to have similar provisions to compensate Covid-19 vaccinated individual.

It is urged that presently mass drive is carried out to vaccinate one and all, and with large-scale vaccination the life and personal liberty of individuals will be at peril and to protect the same, the petitioner seeks an order to the State of Uttar Pradesh to have statutory provisions in other word legislation to compensate the individuals in case of loss/ sufferings.

Also Read: Delhi High Court quashes rape FIR after accused marries survivor

The reliance was made on the Apex Court’s rulings in the cases of Bal Ram Bali & Anr. v. Union of India AIR 2007 SC 3074, V.K. Naswa v. Union of India (2012) 2 SCC 542 and Manoj Narula v. Union of India (2014) 9 SCC 1 to drive home the point that neither the Court can legislate, nor it has any competence to issue directions to the legislature to enact the law in a particular manner.

Also Read: SCAORA writes to CJI seeking resumption of oral mentioning

The bench also reliance the recent ruling of Allahabad High Court in the case of Hindu Personal Law Board Thru Pres. Ashok Pandey (In person) vs. Union of Bharat Thru Secy. Home Affairs Ministry New Delhi P.I.L. Civil No. 2084 of 2021.
The bench stated that Courts have very limited role with regard to judicial legislation since neither the Courts can legislate nor they have any competence to issue directions to legislature to enact a law in a particular manner.