Now, HC gives Chandigarh admn, MHA 24 hours to reexamine curfew relaxations

The Punjab and Haryana high court on Friday gave 24 hours to the Union ministry of home affairs (MHA) and the Chandigarh administration to examine and make changes if the curfew relaxations by the latter were not in consonance with the ministry’s guidelines.

After hearing arguments from the ministry, UT and the petitioner, the high court bench of chief justice RS Jha and justice Arun Palli, while asking UT and MHA to hold a meeting, observed that the issues raised in the petition can be best resolved by the MHA itself, as the import and object of the guidelines can be best understood by it.

The court was hearing a public interest litigation (PIL) filed by lawyer Pankaj Chandgothia against lifting of curfew restrictions by UT from May 3.

The court expressed its concern about how so many relaxations were granted by the administration that too at a time when the number of cases was rising. It specifically referred to opening of public places, such as Sukhna lake. It also questioned as to how free movement was permitted between 7am and 7pm and almost all kind of shops in neighbourhood markets were allowed to open from 10am to 6pm.

During the hearing it also came to light that even as on May 2, parts of certain colonies and sectors were declared as containment zones, subsequently on May 4, the entire areas of Bapu Dham Colony, Sector 38, Sector 52 and Shastri Nagar were decided to be treated as “containment zones”. But no formal order in this regard was issued.

On its part, UT told the court that prohibition from Centre was on opening of entertainment parks. Hence, places like Rock Garden were kept closed, but Sukhna lake was opened in line with the MHA guidelines.

Senior standing counsel, UT, Pankaj Jain also reasoned that Chandigarh, being the capital of Punjab and Haryana, had a unique administrative positioning, and both Mohali and Panchkula helped in regulating the flow of vehicles. On opening of markets, the court was told that Chandigarh did not have standalone shops, and neighbourhood markets were opened only with odd-even formula to avoid large gatherings.

Additional solicitor general of India Satya Pal Jain formally did not file any reply on whether UT’s orders were in violation, but added that all parties had the common objective of defeating Covid-19, and steps taken by UT were also with bona fide object and not with any mala fide intent.