THIRUVANANTHAPURAM: The set of guidelines issued by the state government to allow only those people who are vaccinated, infected or possessing a negative RT-PCR result to go out of their houses for work and other purposes is unlikely to stand legal scrutiny as similar orders issued by Meghalaya and Mizoram governments were declared null and void by the high courts of Meghalaya and Gauhati recently.
The courts cited relevant articles of the constitution that guarantee equality, right to work and right
to life, and asked the governments not to discriminate between the vaccinated and non-vaccinated citizens.
The orders issued by various deputy commissioners in Meghalaya to make it mandatory for shopkeepers, vendors, local taxi drivers and others to get themselves vaccinated before they could resume their businesses were cancelled by the Meghalaya High Court on June 23.
Non-vaccination can never affect right to life: Meghalaya HC
Disposing of a suo motu case, a division bench comprising Chief Justice Biswanath Somadder and Justice H S Thangkhiew held that vaccination could be mandatory and non-vaccination can never affect a major fundamental right, that is right to life, personal liberty and livelihood.On July 2, the Gauhati High Court struck down certain clauses of the standard operating procedure issued by the Mizoram chief secretary on June 29 as part of measures to contain Covid. The controversial clauses restrained non-vaccinated individuals from going out of their houses and from manning shops, stores or undertaking any works, and driving of public transports and commercial vehicles.
The division bench comprising Justices Michael Zothankhuma and Nelso Sailo found that the restrictions were arbitrary and not in consonance with the provisions of Article 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution. The court ruled that allowances available and given to vaccinated persons in the impugned clauses shall also be made equally applicable to unvaccinated persons. Article 14 of the Constitution promises equality and prohibits discrimination while Article 19 guarantees freedom of movement and freedom to practice any profession. Article 21 guarantees protection of life and personal liberty. “There can be any number of reasons for a person to leave his/her house, for example, it could be for the purpose of procuring essential supplies, like food, medicines, attending to their near and dear ones who are sick, etc.
However, the said clause has virtually put them under house arrest in violation of Article 21 while persons who have been given the first dose of vaccine are allowed to leave their houses. Thus, on the ground of discrimination alone, Clause 5(2) is arbitrary. When the SOP requires all persons to cover their faces and to adhere to Covid protocol as mentioned in the above SOP, there should not be any discrimination against unvaccinated persons,” the Gauhati HC remarked.
Noting that even vaccinated people can spread Covid, the court said, “If vaccinated and unvaccinated persons can be infected by the Covid and if they can both be spreaders of the virus, the restriction placed only upon the un-vaccinated persons, debarring them from earning livelihood or leaving their houses to obtain essential items is unjustified, grossly unreasonable and arbitrary.