NATASHA NARWAL CASE (DELHI RIOTS BAIL JUDGEMENT) : LESSONS FOR THE GOVERNMENT, THE PROTESTERS AND THE COURT

 

NATASHA NARWAL v. STATE OF DELHI Nct, 15 June 2021 (Bail judgement on Delhi riot)

Anurag deep, Associate Professor, Indian Law Institute, New Delhi 

1. Opening Comments

2. Natasha Narwhal judgement -content and annexure

1. Was the alleged conduct of the accused constitutionality guaranteed? 

2. Screenshots and evidence of Riots

3. Concluding comments 

1. Who is abuser of law: Both (State and Protesters)

2. Wrong use of National security laws : remedies

1. Opening Comments

Since December 2019 a protest against the Citizenship Amendment Act, 2019 emerged in various parts of India. Delhi was the center of it. In Feb 2020 there was a riot in Delhi in which more than 50 persons were killed, including police officers. Government and private properties were damaged on a large scale. This all was committed when the US President Donald Trump was in India. Besides FIR under IPC, UAPA 1967 (a counter terror legislation) was also imposed on various accused. The accused include various students from JNU, Jamia etc. They were arrested in May 2020, after around three months of registration of FIR. The accused applied for bail for accusation under IPC as well as  UAPA 1967. There was all possibilities to get bail under IPC because after a certain period 60/90 days of custody bail has to be granted (default bail). However, under  UAPA 1967 the granting of bail is very difficult because of special provision under section 43D(5) which restricts the power of court. “Jail is the rule and bail is the exception” is the jurisprudence because of strict provision of bail under counter terror laws. Before the time of default bail (the period of custody after which the accused can demand bail as a matter of right) under UAPA (ie 90/180 days) the prosecution submitted the chargesheet in September 2020. After submission of chargesheet the chance of default bail was neutralised. The Court has to exercise discretion based on the evidences placed in the chrgesheet under law.

It was alleged by the accused that 

1. The government has arrested the protestors because it wanted to suppress dissenting voices against the Citizenship Amendment Act, 2019. The accused were well known hardcore protestors of the Citizenship Amendment Act, 2019. 

2. The government has wrongfully slapped UAPA 1967. The protest was peaceful though it led to violence and many deaths. It could be a case under section 34/ 302/ 120B/ 149/ 107 etc but cannot be a case under counter terror legislation.  

The division bench of the high court of Delhi, (Anup Jairam Bhambhani J. [author] and Siddharth Mridul J.) have accepted the second plea and granted them bail. Regarding first plea the high court has made a couple of remarks on the application of UAPA 1967 which shows 

1. that the functioning of the prosecution department is weak 

2. they are unaware of the philosophy of counter terror legislations 

3. this case may be an illustration of misuse of UAPA 1967 

4. the government is using UAPA 1967 to suppress peaceful dissent. 

Above statements (a) (b) (c) are agreeable. But the fourth statement (d) is difficult to digest if any one gives a glance over the screenshots attached to the judgement. Is there any prima facie evidence under UAPA 1967 -The answer is strong No. 

Is there any prima facie evidence under IPC -The answer is a strong Yes. 

II. Natasha Narwhal judgement -content and annexure 

The judgement may be divided into two parts. First part is the judgement itself. Second part is the documents (screenshots) attached. Both take almost equal space in pages.  The judgement and comment may be discussed as under-

1. The bail judgement deals with the principles of law under UAPA 1967. It has a precedential reference of Hitendra Vishnu Thakur vs. State of Maharashtra (1994) 4 SCC 602 and decisions like Sanjay Dutta case (1994) 5 SCC 410 besides other cases. The high court rightly concluded that a terrorist activity is an abnormal activity. It is distinct from general criminal activities. The State must take note that this difference ought to be the controlling factor when UAPA 1967 is applied. The test is, whether the alleged conduct cannot be dealt with classical criminal law? Is it really necessary to impose the provisions of counter terror legislations?

2. The emphasis on the difference between a criminal conduct and a terrorist conduct reminds me of the case of Ram Manohar Lohia (1966). In this case the constitution bench held that law and order is a big circle. Public order is a smaller circle in that big circle. Security of State is the smallest circle. We may add that the defence of India (challenge to sovereignty and integrity of India) will be more restricted than Security of State. In other words the evidence required for restricting a conduct on the ground of the security of India should be more compelling and convincing. 

C. The judgement explains the scope of the right to protest. The high court rightly pointed out that the protest may be for a right cause or a wrong cause. The protest, “whether it is justified or unjustified” is not relevant.  Every protest, irrespective of its good or bad purposes, needs protection provided it does not breach the constitutional contours of reasonable restrictions. A protest may be noisy, may be disorderly (or likely to be disorderly) or may be violent (or likely to be disorderly)). Penal law runs into motion if the protest has a tendency of violence or disorder. The high court relied on two principles, security vis a vis liberty. The high court concluded that the evidences do not show that security was disturbed to the highest degree and that a provision of counter terror legislation should be imposed because the conduct of the accused has no proximate connection with terrorist activities, or other connected offences. No prima facie case is established as required under the provision of bail [43D(5)] under UAPA 1967.  Therefore, the general law of bail (as under section 439 CrPC) has to be applied and not the special law of UAPA 1967. Based on evidence presented in the chargesheet the high court found that the evidence of incitement of violence is also confusing, what to talk about any offence under UAPA 1967.  

The high court in Natasha Narwal was of the view that the dissenting conduct seemed to be confused with terrorist conduct. As this statement has wide nuances it may be reproduced as under: 

36. We are constrained to express, that it seems, that in its anxiety to suppress dissent, in the mind of the State, the line between the constitutionally guaranteed right to protest and terrorist activity seems to be getting somewhat blurred. If this mindset gains traction, it would be a sad day for democracy.

This statement of the Delhi HC has attracted headlines. Many have celebrated it out of context. This gives an impression that the accused were peaceful protestors. They were only engaged in galvanising support against CVV/NRC. This was lawful and protected by the constitution. The impression of the statement by the HC also goes like the actus reus of accused was limited to chakka jam which may be little unlawful but not undemocratic. This needs to be investigated in detail.

Was the alleged conduct of accused constitutionality guaranteed? 

Based on above rationale (that UAPA was not the correct law probably) the high court granted bail to the accused, and rightly so. However, this statement of the court is little generalised and seems to be made out of context. It gives an impression that the accused were exercising their “constitutionally guaranteed right to protest.” While the government failed to apply its mind properly before imposing UAPA 1967, it is not correct to state that the protestors were exercising their constitutionally guaranteed rights which can be established by reading the second part of the judgement.       

The second part of the judgement comprises relevant screenshots from the chargesheet. The screenshots establishes two things 

1. that there is no evidence to proceed under UAPA 1967. Bail is rightly granted. Indeed the charges under UAPA 1967 cannot be framed. Chargesheet under UAPA 1967 will be quashed. It  is reported that the Police are thinking of filing an appeal. It is difficult to state what are the grounds of appeal because the screenshots do not indicate the Police has clinching evidence to establish a prima facie case under UAPA 1967. 

2. there is enough evidence to proceed under IPC. If the prosecution is able to establish the evidence that is presented in the chargesheet, it will lead to conviction of the accused. In appeal the Police may argue in the Supreme court that bail granted for offences under IPC are not well founded. The accused may influence witnesses because the accused are not only influential but can resort to scary/ violent tricks to intimidate the eye witnesses. Unless the Police has some additional evidence, it is not likely that the Supreme court will honour the request of the Police. The chances to get a stay on bail order of the high court are not good.  

Screenshots and evidence of Riots

The screenshots contain the statements of many eye witnesses. They are primary evidence and have strong probative force. If the chargesheet is read, it makes serious allegations. The eyewitness of various connected transactions make statement as under--

1. The accused students (who were granted bail in this case) were a part of a group which was planning a huge protest with the purpose that it would result in riot and violence. Certain persons of the group which they belonged was insisting केवल भाषण से काम नहीं चलेगा। खून बहाना पड़ेगा. लाल मिर्च, अंडे, एसिड बोतल लेकर आओ.(1434) [statement of a witness]. The eyewitness is a person whose job seems to be to make arrangements for tea, chairs etc for the leaders of protesters. [screnshot-2]

2. screen stot-3b --ये चक्का जाम हिन्दुओं की आबादी में करेंगे, जब हिन्दू घिर जाएंगे तो वहां तुरंत पथराव कर देंगे, फिर दंगे भड़क जाएंगे. चिल्ली पाउडर, एसिड, कांच की खाली बोतल, डंडे, पत्थर अभी से जमा  करो ताकि दंगे में काम आ सके.  (1554) [statement of a witness]

3. On 23-24 Jan 2020 a meeting was arranged. It was attended by the accused, (Natasha Narwal and Devangana Kalita). A person (A1) was saying that the protest should ultimately escalate to riot and should result in spilling of bloods of policemen and others. This is the only possible means to bring the government on knees. A1 directed the accused person to induce local women of Seemapuri to keep stockpiling knives, bottles, acid, stones, chilli powder, other dangerous articles to be used in rioting…(screen shot-5); [statement of a witness]

4. Screenshot 7--16/17 फरवरी की रात प्रोटेस्ट साइट पर एक सीक्रेट मीटिंग बुलाई गई, जिसको देवांगना, नताशा ने अटेंड किया. इस मीटिंग में प्रोटेस्ट और दंगों की बात की गई थी जिसपर सब सहमत थे. उसने मेरी मुलाकात देवांगना, नताशा से कराइ. मुझे पता चला कि इन लोगों ने डंडे, पत्थर, और लाल मिर्च इकठा करने की शुरुआत करी. और लोगों से बोलै कि ये सब इकठ्ठा करे. (1964). [statement of a witness]

5. Screenshot 24 - इसी दौरान [मालूम] चला कि नताशा, देवांगना, और पिंजरा तोड़ के अन्य सदस्य २६ जनवरी से घूम घूम कर औरतों को पत्थर, कटीले तारों वाले डंडे, खाली बोतलें, एसिड की बोतलें, लोहे की रोड, लाल मिर्च पाउडर, जमा करने के लिए कह रही हैं.

6. Screenshot 25-26-मैंने ग्रुप में यह भी लिखा कि अगर प्रोटेस्ट पीसफुल है तो नताशा व उनके साथी चिल्ली पावडर क्यों बाँट रहे हैं, इस पर A 2  ने व्हाट्सप्प काल कर धमकी दी कि ग्रुप पर मुहँ तो नहीं खोला, कौम से गद्दारी मत करना वार्ना बचेगा नहीं. [statement of a witness]

7. Screenshot 27 --देवांगना, नताशा मौजूद थे. लोगों को तेजाब इकठा करने को बोला गया. 

8. Screenshot 31 ---समय करीब ७ बजे शाम मैंने आगे बढ़कर मौजपुर मेट्रो स्टेशन पर देखा कि देवांगना, नताशा बुर्के वाली लेडिस को पत्थर, बोतलें, और मिर्च पाउडर के पैकेट बाँट रही हैं, बुर्के वाली लेडिस CAA समर्थकों पर फेंक रही हैं. 

9. Screenshot 36 --उनके साथ ही देवांगना, नताशा नरवाल, जिनके बारे में मुझे पता लगा कि पिंजरा तोड़ नाम की पार्टी से हैं, भी वहां आकर बैठने लगे. इन मीटिंग्स में देश विरोधी नारे और भीड़ को कैसे हिंसक बनाया जाए इसपर चर्चा होती थी. कैसे  सड़कों को जाम किया जाए जिससे दूसरी कम्युनिटी के लोग परेशां हो जाएँ और कुछ हरकत करे जो दंगे को भड़काने के काम आएगी. 

III. Concluding Remarks 

Can these statements be called a legitimate exercise of dissent? Is talking about disorder, instigation of collection of acid, bottles, chilli powder etc and their distribution constitutionally protected right to dissent? The feeling of the high court that the government seems to be misusing UAPA 1967 is correct. It is also correct that there was no prima facie evidence of application of UAPA 1967. But considering the alleged conduct of the accused as constitutionality protected form of dissent is patronising the conduct of accused against whom there is prima facie evidence of inciting disorder and violence. The High court should reconsider its statement and reframe it because such statements will be used at various national and international forums. This reminds the minority opinion of Chandrachud, J. in Romila Thapar case (28 Sept 2018) where he observed as under:

"Dissent is a symbol of a vibrant democracy. Voices in opposition cannot be muzzled by persecuting those who take up unpopular causes. Where, however, the expression of dissent enters upon the prohibited field of an incitement to violence or the subversion of a democratically elected government by recourse to unlawful means, the dissent ceases to be a mere expression of opinion. Unlawful activities which violate the law have to be dealt with in accordance with it."  

The screen shots establishes (prima facie)that the expression of dissent by accused entered "upon the prohibited field of an incitement to violence." More than one eyewitness statements specifically mention that the accused were active participants in the meetings where "subversion of a democratically elected government by recourse to unlawful means" was openly promoted. Indeed some who were present in the meeting have opposed the idea of violence, planning of riot. They were threatened of dire consequences (though not by the accused but their active friends which links a conspiracy angle where the accused could be involved). The HC missed the point that dissent ceases to be mere expression of opinion when it has tendency of violence or disorder. "Unlawful activities which violate the law have to be dealt with in accordance with it." Therefore the HC Delhi has committed a mistake in making these statements in a matter where more than 50 persons were killed, properties worth crores was damaged, and the reputation of Indian State was demolished in the time when US President was in Delhi.

1. Who is abuser of law: Both (State and Protesters)

The Government as well as  the accused both abused their position. The Government  abused its authority and power while the protestors (accused) abused their right to free speech. The imposition of UAPA 1967 establishes that the government did not do its homework well.  It might have used this law to convey a signal that if protest becomes violent, zero tolerance will be the policy even in those cases which can be dealt with the classical criminal laws.  

The screenshot establishes that the protestors abused their freedom of speech and expression as well as  their right to protest. It is a lesson for both. What worries me is the allegations against the students of higher education. Though the allegations under IPC (planning a peaceful protest but actually executing a violent protest with the purpose of riot among Hindu Muslims) are yet to be established, the screenshots and the statements of witnesses demonstrate a disturbing story. If they are correct, it is a big question mark on academic institutions, its socio-political environment. How do students get this much time to plan a violent protest? What is the role of academic fraternity in such situations? What are we academicians teaching and doing on the campuses?     

Wrong use of National security laws : remedies

The wrong use of UAPA 1967 or counter terror legislations is not something new. It may be due to negligent conduct of the government officials or can be a part of a deliberate design to deal with the opponents. The government knew that they had no evidence to establish UAPA 1967 but they continued with it so that the accused stay in jail for a reasonable period. How to check such misuse?  The government cannot take action because it is a party to the wrong decision. In Nambi Narayanan case (March 2018), the Supreme court has ordered to fix responsibility for wrongful arrest. But the Kerala government has declined to take any action under one or other pretext. Ultimately the Supreme Court has ordered the CBI to do the needful based on the reports of a fact finding committee headed by a former Supreme court judge. The case of Natasha Narwal is different. It is not a case of wrongful arrest. And unlike Nambi Narayanan (where misuse of legal and judicial process was established beyond reasonable doubts by the Supreme court), Natasha Narwal is at the initial stage. However, based on the screenshots available with the Delhi high court judgement, I will treat it a case of wrongful imposition of UAPA 1967 though a conclusive judicial finding is yet to be done.  On the reform side this author has proposed in his previous writings (See case comments in the Indian Law Institute News Letter): 

1. Can the high court be a little more active in fixing the responsibility of such negligence or deliberate design? It may ask the legal department of the government if they are aware of the difference between a criminal activity and a terrorist activity? Are they conscious of Hitendra Vishnu Thakur's decision? The court can ask the officials responsible for it to go for a refresher course or training programme to understand the basics. A similar order was made in State of Gujarat v. Kishanbhai, (2014) though it was at acquittal stage.  

2. Secondly, can the high court ask the government to submit a compensation amount in the High court registry? The grant of such compensation can be made to the accused once the case is conclusively decided in their favour. The accused were charged under IPC as well as  UAPA 1967. They had to stay in jail for a longer period because of UAPA 1967. Wrong imposition of UAPA 1967 was against the “procedure established by law” because it was unfair, unjust and unreasonable. There was hardly any evidence which could connect the accused to terror activities. This was violative of personal liberty under article 21. A constitutional tort was committed. For constitutional tort compensation can be granted. It has been granted in many cases of misuse of power by the State. However, the judicial approach is very conservative. In the case of Akshardham Attack, the Supreme court declined to grant any compensation though another bench of the Supreme court has reached a finding that the accused of Akshardham Attack were falsely implicated. If an honourable acquittal does not deserve compensation under constitutional tort, it is very difficult to argue for compensation in Natasha Narwal case which is still at pre-trial stage. 

[THANKS TO -Pranshu, Kartikey, Sidhartha [LLM-pursuing(2020-21),ILI] for significant suggestion]

LOCKDOWN ORDER OF ALLAHABAD HC : TO CHEER UP OR TO RETHINK

Lock Down Order : Judicial Activism or Over-reach? 

Dr Anurag Deep, Associate Professor, ILI

In-Re Inhuman Condition At Quarantine Centres And For Providing Better Treatment To Corona Positive v. State of UP, April 19, 2021  

101 years ago Benjamin N Cardozo in his time honoured work wrote that "I take judge-made law as one of the existing realities of life." The DB of the HC of Allahabad has proved it right. It has directed lockdown in 5 cities in UP.  The order is in 23 para and has 12 directions. In obiter the HC has desired that complete lockdown be considered. They warned that if it is not done and situation so demands, the HC will do it. [Pl see original order here,  http://anuragdeepili.blogspot.com/2021/04/allahabd-high-court-lock-down-full-order.html]     

 The concern of the HC is praiseworthy. The judiciary is the strongest means of check and balance. HC (Allahabad) has shown more sensitivity than other HCs. The decision to lockdown is an executive decision but the govt in almost all states are avoiding it so that there is no repetition of the huge migration, and sudden unemployment. It seems the HC has not considered this situation. There are remarks like negligence by Govt but no reason has been given why the HC feels the Govt is negligent. Are all govt negligent? The HC must ve dilated on this part. My feeling is that all govts are trying their best bcz it is a matter of survival for humanity and any negligence will lead to downfall of the govt. The HC has pointed out that election was conducted and health was overlooked. This may be a strong point. The elections of Panchayat in UP could be postponed for six months. On this point I think there was a judgement error by the UP govt. But the same cannot be conclusively stated about State elections bcz putting off elections of State would ve created a constitutional crisis followed by art 356, which would have gone in favour of NDA govt. The order of the HC of Allahabad is very attractive but is a clear verdict on the policy and executive decision making. Both are not holy cow. Policy and non action by executive on vital matters of public interest and fundamental right to life can be a matter of judicial review. Judicial legislation in exceptional case can be tolerated. There is a reasonable possibility that the Govt of UP (and other govts ) also wanted the lockdown order. But the Govt was not able to take bcz of financial constraints, law/order issue etc. The order of the HC will help the govt to fight the pandemic. It will also help the frontline warriors like the medical practioners, the Police etc.   Is there anything to cheer up? Such orders are governance by judiciary. It makes the judiciary more powerful. If the Govt fails to contain the impact of pandemic, the govt will be answerable in 2022. The people will throw them out. If the Judicial order leads to more problem who will be accountable. The Judiciary must have directed the Govt to do something for daily wages workers, those working in Malls, in hotels. The order of the HC, even if it has been issued with very good intentions, has potential to deprive the right to livelihood of one crore people. (the joint population of five cities). 

What are the options for the govt. 

1. The govt can go for an immediate stay on HC order from a higher authority. This can be done within 24 hours. A couple of remarks by the HC will make the Govt uncomfortable. As the elections are going on this order will be used politically by the opposition. There is nothing for the UP govt to lose.  This suggests that the Govt of UP will go for appeal.   

2. The govt accepts the order as this will help the govt. 

3. The govt seeks some clarification from the HC, on the matter of chances of migration  and right to food of poor people. It may also seek to reconsider certain remarks made by the HC. 

In my opinion the UP govt should not make this a prestige issue. Elections are almost over. This decision can have little impact on elections. The govt should accept the verdict of the HC and plan a relief package with the help of central govt, NGOs and the people of India. This order of the HC may trigger other HCs to issue similar orders. The only danger is that the judiciary sometimes does not know when to stop interfering in executive domain. This order can be treated as a necessary evil in this extremely difficult time.   

ALLAHABD HIGH COURT LOCK DOWN FULL ORDER

this is PDF converted to google doc order. 

Court No. - 7 

Case :- PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 574  of 2020 

Petitioner :- In-Re Inhuman Condition At Quarantine  Centres And For Providing Better Treatment To Corona  Positive 

Respondent :- State of U.P. 

Counsel for Petitioner :- Gaurav Kumar Gaur,Abhinav Gaur,Aditya Singh Parihar,Amitanshu Gour,Arvind Kumar Goswami,Bhagwan Dutt Pandey,Ishir Sripat,Jamil  Ahamad Azmi,Jitendra Kumar,Katyayini,Pradeep Kumar  Srinette,R.K. Shahi,Rahul Sahai,Rajeev Kumar  Singh,Rishu Mishra,S.P.S. Chauhan,Sarveshwari  Prasad,Satyaveer Singh,Shailendra Garg,Siddharth  Shukla,Sunita Sharma,Suo Moto,Sushil Kumar  Mishra,Swetashwa Agarwal,Uttar Kumar Goswami,Vibhu Rai 

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Arun Kumar,Ashish  Mishra,Dhiraj Singh,Hari Nath Tripathi,Purnendu Kumar  Singh,Satyavrat Sahai,Sunil Dutt Kautilya,Suresh  Chandra Dwivedi,Tahir Husain,Vishakha Pande 

Hon'ble Siddhartha Varma,J. 

Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J. 

1. Heard Shri Manish Goel, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Shri A.K. Goel, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, Shri S.K. Singh, learned Additional Solicitor General of India assisted by Shri Purnendra Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing for Union of India and learned Advocate Commissioners.

2 

2. Shri Bhanu Chandra Goswami, District Magistrate, Prayagraj; and Shri Mohit Jain, Nodal Officer, Swaroop Rani Medical College, Prayagraj have also appeared through video conferencing and have been heard. 

3. The recent surge of pandemic COVID-19 has virtually incapacitated all our medical infrastructure in the State of U.P. and specially in cities like Prayagraj, Lucknow, Varanasi, Kanpur and Gorakhpur. It appears 

that the pandemic is teasing the system in a situation where patients have outnumbered the hospital beds and people are just running from pillar to post and in this process attendants of patients are not only getting infected but others in public are also getting infected and a complete chain has got formed. Before it further spirals to engulf in it the entire population of these badly hit districts, it is necessary to take some harsh steps in larger public interest. We know that putting a lockdown to public activities is a matter purely in the nature of policy decision by the concerned government and it was in keeping with this principle that we in our last order dated 13.04.2021, had directed the

3 

government to think about restricting public movement to break the chain of Covid infection. However, in the affidavit filed today nothing concrete has been placed before us. No concrete plan has yet been chalked out in the light of our observations made in our last order though some efforts of course, have been made to engage some private hospitals to convert them as Covid hospitals, but even there facilities available are not upto mark. We also do not see anything new in the 

government guidelines issued on 17.04.2021.

4. We understand the limitation of the government in creating infrastructure forthwith to meet the challenge of COVID-19. At the moment efforts are afoot to create the same but before all efforts are translated into action much water would have flown under the bridge to the utter dismay of a large population of have nots. We are of the view that in a democracy there are legitimate expectations from the government to adopt measures to meet public health issues like all other issues of public interest. Public interest expects judiciary to remain vigilant to all the issues which if not not

4 

addressed to in time, will result in the failure of the system which is meant to safeguard public interest. 

5. In any civilised society if public health system is not able to meet the challenges and people die for want of proper medication, it means there has been no proper development. Health and education go side-by side. Those in the helm of affairs of governance are to be blamed for the present chaotic health problems and 

more so when there is a democracy which means a government of the people, by the people and for the people. 

6. We take the example of population of the city area of Prayagraj (Allahabad) which is nearly 30 lakhs and total available beds in the government hospitals which are 12 in number, are 1477 (L2 and L3) and 500 in L1 category and further beds in ICUs are only 514. Thus the medical health infrastructure that the government has developed in the past, can cater to the needs of less than 0.5% of the city population. In villages the situation is still worse. These figures might be

5 

approximate ones but may quite explain the situation. 

7. We further notice that government has a plan to set up three 1000 bedded make shift hospitals at Lucknow. Similarly there is a plan to increase 20 beds every day to the existing infrastructure at Prayagraj. If we consider the efforts against per day count of COVID positive cases that are around 8-9 thousands in only two districts of Prayagraj and Lucknow and per day 

seekers to admission in COVID hospitals being 500- 1000 as minimum, the current efforts won’t be of much help in terms of required need of medical health in this 21st century of modern era. If people die of pandemic in a large number due to paucity of sufficient medical aid it would be the governments to blame which failed to counter the pandemic even after one long year of experience and learning. One would only laugh at us that we have enough to spend on elections and very little to spend on public health. 

8. One cannot even imagine what will happen if only 10% of the city population gets infected and needs

6 

medical help in hospitals. How the government will manage with the presently existing infrastructure is anybody's guess.  

9. We have been informed that people are getting developed influenza like infections in every fifth house of every Mohalla in the city and tracking-tracing and testing system, if has not failed, has certainly not been able to meet the requirement of the population of the 

city. Reports are neither updated before 72 hours nor, samples are taken care of, owing to the shortage of manpower. Only VVIPs are getting reports within 6-12 hours. Thus early testing scheme or plan is a farce. 

10. We have also been informed that a large number of the medical and health workers are either in isolation or quarantined for becoming COVD positive and the system of medical health is being managed with 1/3rd strength only and that too has gone tired due to the 24x7 service. 

11. Economy, economy and economy is the only tune that the government is all the time harping upon, but

7 

bread and butter if you take to a person who needs oxygen and medication, it will be of no use to him. You may have grocery shops with full of eatables and industries which produce bikes and cars but all this won’t be of any use if your medical shops run out of stock of life saving drugs like Remdesvire in the current surge of pandemic. It is a shame that while the Government knew of the magnitude of the second wave it never planned things in advance. 

12. If hospitals are not able to provide beds and oxygen we are sure that cities like Prayagraj, Lucknow, Varanasi Kanpur and Gorakhpur in the State of you U.P. cannot provide medical aid to even 10% of the populations at any given point of time. If hospitals' staff and medicos go ill for the relentless services to cure people in the pandemic, people would start losing their lives and all pomp and show of development would be of no avail.  

13. In such above situation, the night curfew in the name of Corona Curfew and the weekend Curfew are

8 

nothing else but a mere eyewash. It was probably an effort to show that our last order had been taken care of. We are however, not satisfied at all. We see people are largely not following our order for putting masks on their faces nor, the police could ensure 100% masking till date. 

14. We must record our displeasure the way government and the State Election Commission 

proceeded to hold election forcing teachers and other government staff to perform duties exposing themselves to the threat of pandemic that looms large these days. The police was virtually shifted to polling places giving priority to election above public health.  

15. In the state of Uttar Pradesh where COVID-19 has taken the form of a pandemic the authorities which were holding the Panchayat elections, were fully in the know of the fact that no activity had to take place where it was not possible to keep people away from each other.  

16. Further the photographs of the various places

9 

where elections were held definitely show that no social distancing was maintained. Also we find that on many occasions in various political rallies masks were never worn by people. In our considered view action is liable to be taken against the organisers who did not anticipate such eventualities under the Uttar Pradesh Public Health Epidemic Diseases Act, 2020 and/ or any other relevant Act in force. The action taken shall be placed before us on the next date fixed. 

17. As we have discussed above and also noticed, the situation has worsened due to recent outbreak of Covid 19 pandemic since the last one week, we are of the definite view that if things are not arrested to give some respite to medical and paramedical staff, the entire system would collapse and relief will be confined to VIPs and VVIPs. We find from the scenario that emerges from the Government Hospitals that admission of patients to ICUs are largely being done on the recommendation of VIPs. Even supply of life saving anti viral drug namely Remdesivire is being provided only on the recommendation of VIPs. VIPs and VVIPs are

10 

getting their RT-PCR report within 12 hours, whereas, ordinary citizen is kept waiting for such reports for two to three days and thus, spreading further infection to other members of his/her family. We cannot lose site of a fact that large number of doctors of King George Hospital and other hospitals like Swaroop Rani Nehru Medical Hospital have gone into isolation after being tested Covid positive. Even the Chief Minister of the State is in isolation in Lucknow. If popular government 

has its own political compulsions in not checking public movements during this pandemic, we can not remain 

mere passive spectators. Public health is the top most priority and call of the moment and any complacency of any degree today will cause havoc to people. We can’t shirk away from our constitutional duty to save innocent people from the pandemic which is spreading due to the negligence of a few. 

18. Thus in the larger public interest, we are called upon to pass orders to break the chain of the pandemic COVID-19.

11 

19. We are of the considered view that in given scenario of present time if people are restrained from going outside their homes for a week in the first instance, the current chain of spread of COVID infection can be broken and this will also give some respite to the frontline medical and health workers who would pay more attention to those patients who are already admitted. They would also get some sort of much required short rest as they are getting exhausted. 

Accordingly we are passing the following directions in respect of cities of Prayagraj, Lucknow, Varanasi, 

Kanpur Nagar and Gorakhpur, and we direct the government to strictly enforce them forthwith: 

1. All establishments be it government or private, except financial institutions and financial departments, medical and health services, industrial and scientific establishments, essential services including municipal functions, and public transport, shall remain closed till 26th April, 2021. The judiciary will however, function on its own discretion; 

2. All shopping complexes and malls shall remain closed till 26th April, 2021;

12 

3. All grocery shops and other commercial shops excluding medical shops, with more than three workers shall remain closed till 26th April, 2021; 

4. All hotels, restaurants and even the small eating points on thelas etc. shall remain closed till 26th April, 2021; 

5. All institutions like educational institutions and other institutions relating to other disciplines and activities be it government, semi government or private shall remain closed 

including for their teachers and instructors and other staff till 26th April, 2021 (this direction 

is for the whole of Uttar Pradesh); 

6. No social functions and gatherings including marriage functions shall be permitted till 26th April, 2021. However, in case of already fixed marriages a necessary further permission would have to be taken from the District Magistrate of the concerned district. Gatherings would be limited to 25 persons and the district magistrate concerned shall take decision after giving due consideration to the prevailing situation of the impact of Covid 19 including notification of containment zones in the area where such marriage has to take place;

13 

7. All religious activities in public of any kind is directed to remain suspended till 26th April, 2021; 

8. All religious establishments of any kind are directed to remain closed till 26th April, 2021; 

9. All hawkers including fruits and vegetable vendors, milk vendors and bread vendors, shall go off the road by 11 AM every day till 26th April, 2021; 

10. Containment zones shall be notified every day in two leading Hindi and English newspapers having wide circulation in the districts of Prayagraj, Lucknow, Varanasi, Kanpur Nagar/ Dehat and Gorakhpur. 

11. All public movements on roads would remain restricted completely, subject to above directions. Movements would be only allowed in case of medical help and emergencies. 

12. In addition to the above directions, we direct the State Government to go robust for implementing the current vaccination programme. 

20. Let a copy of this order be sent to the Chief Secretary, Government of Uttar Pradesh today itself to

14 

enforce our above directions forthwith from the night of 19.04.2021 till 26.04.2021 in the cities of Prayagraj, Lucknow, Varanasi, Kanpur Nagar, and Gorakhpur. Copies of this order shall also be placed before the District Magistrates of the concerned districts. 

21. Our above directions are nowhere close to a complete lockdown. We are conscious of the fact that before imposing a lockdown the concerned government 

has to work out various modalities. In this order if we have not imposed a lockdown it does not mean that we do not believe in it. We are still of the view that if we want to break the chain a lockdown for a duration of at least two weeks is a must. 

22. We, therefore, once again in addition to the directions we have already given, direct the government to consider imposition of a complete lockdown in the entire state for at least a period of two weeks. This would not only break the chain of the spread of the virus but would also give respite to health workers. 

15 

23. Put up this matter again on 26.04.2021 at 11.00 a.m. 

(Ajit Kumar,J.) (Siddhartha Varma,J.)  

Order Date :- 19.4.2021 

IrfanUddin