Skip to main content
Social Media
  • twitter
  • linkedin
Home
  • About the project
    • About the project
    • Partnerships and Collaborators
    • Coordination Unit
    • Project Management Team
    • International Network of Judges and Legal Scholars
    • Research assistants
  • Case Law Database
    • Case index
    • Database charts
  • News
    • News and announcements
    • Press newsroom
  • Resources
    • Working papers and other resources
    • Media kit
  • Contacts
Back to the previous page

India, High Court of Madras, 15 March 2022, Crl. OP No. 5999 of 2022

Case overview

Share
  • linkedin
  • twitter
  • facebook
  • envelope
  • print
Country
India
Case ID
Crl. OP No. 5999 of 2022
Decision date
15 March 2022
Deciding body (English)
High Court of Madras
Type of body
Court
Type of Court (material scope)
Constitutional Court
Type of jurisdiction
Single jurisdiction system
Type of Court (territorial scope)
State Court
Instance
1st Instance
Area
Health law, detention and prison law
Further areas addressed
Freedom of movement of people
Outcome of the decision
Claim upheld

Case analisys

General Summary

The Respondent had suo motu registered a case against the Petitioner for the offence under Sections 188 and 269 of the Penal Code of India placing the allegation that the Petitioner in defiance of the promulgatory orders issued under Section 144 of Criminal Procedure Code pursuant to the COVID-19 pandemic had appeared in public. A petition to the High Court sought an order from the Court quashing such FIR against the Petitioner.

The Court held that coming out of the house during the pandemic period should not held to be a reason for spoiling the future of the Petitioner. An unintended casual act, without any act of violence, should not take away the future of the Petitioner. Moreover, it was also brought to the notice of the Court that the Government was also going to drop all these cases, which have been registered during the pandemic period against the public.

Facts of the case

The Respondent had suo motu registered a case against the Petitioner for the offence under Sections 188 and 269 of IPC. The allegations in the complaint were that the Petitioner in defiance of the promulgatory orders issued under Section 144 of Cr.P.C. pursuant to the COVID-19 pandemic had driven a two-wheeler on Periakadai street in the Tiruvannamalai District and when the Respondent had inquired the Petitioner, he had not stated any reasons. The writ petition before the High Court sought the quashing the FIR filed against the petitioner.

Type of measure challenged
State government measure
Measures, actions, remedies claimed
Relief in the nature of mandamus
Individual / collective enforcement
Action brought in the interest of a specific group of claimants for the purpose of injunctive measures or other remedies, including the annulment of administrative decisions, for the protection of a more general collective interest.
Nature of the parties
  • Claimant(s)
    Private individual
  • Defendant(s)
    Public
Type of procedure
Ordinary procedures
Reasoning of the deciding body

The Court in the matter of the allegation against the Petitioner said that, there is no material evidence to prove that the Petitioner had knowingly attempted to spread infection of any life-endangering disease and it is also not the case of the Respondents who at the time of the incident, the petitioner was affected by COVID-19. So, the contention that going out during pandemic period would spread the disease was without any basis.

Conclusions of the deciding body

The criminal Original Petition was allowed.

The Court found that going out of the house during the pandemic period should not be held to be a reason for spoiling the future of the Petitioner. An unintended casual act, without any act of violence, should not take away the future of the Petitioner. Moreover, it was also brought to the attention of the Court that the Government was also going to drop all these cases, which have been registered during the pandemic period against the public, hence the FIR was ordered to be quashed.

Balancing Fundamental Rights and Fundamental Freedoms

Fundamental Right(s) involved
Freedom of movement of people, goods and capital
Fundamental Right(s) instruments (constitutional provisions, international conventions and treaties)
Freedom of movement of people, Art. 19(1)(d), Indian Constitution
Rights and freedoms specifically identified as (possibly) conflicting with the right to health
Health v. freedom of movement of persons
General principle applied
Reasonableness
Balancing techniques and principles (proportionality, reasonableness, others)

The Court applied the reasonableness principle while stating that an unintended casual act, without any act of violence, should not take away the future of the Petitioner. There is no material evidence to show that before registering the case, the permission of the concerned jurisdictional Magistrate had been obtained. In such circumstances, the second Respondent has no right to register the case nor to investigate the matter.

Authors of the case note
  • Dr. Jishnu JR, Assistant Professor (Sr.), VITSOL, VIT, Chennai
  • R. Adithya Shri, Student, VITSOL, VIT, Chennai
Case identified by
VITSOL, VIT Chennai Research Team
Published by Laura Piva on 17 November 2022

More cases from India

  • India, High Court of Bombay, Aurangabad bench, 27 January 2021, PIL No. 25 of 2020
    Area: Public health and access to healthcare (not Covid-related diseases)
    Fundamentals rights involved: Right to health (inc. right to vaccination, right to access to reproductive health)
    Outcome: Claim upheld
  • India, High Court of Bombay, 22 February 2022, Public Interest Litigation No. 84 and 85 of 2021
    Area: Healthcare management (Covid related, excluding vaccination)
    Fundamentals rights involved: Freedom of expression; Freedom of movement of people, goods and capital; Right to good administration
    Outcome: Claim upheld
  • India, High Court of Delhi, 25 May 2022, W.P.(C) No. 308/2022
    Area: Procedural law
    Fundamentals rights involved: Right to access to justice, to a fair trial and to jury trial
    Outcome: Claim upheld
  • India, High Court of Orissa, 23 March 2022, W.P. (C) PIL No. 17152 of 2021
    Area: Healthcare management (Covid related, excluding vaccination)
    Fundamentals rights involved: Right to health (inc. right to vaccination, right to access to reproductive health); Other (Right to life)
    Outcome: Claim upheld
  • India, High Court of Patna, 31 March 2022, WP(C) 19063 of 2021
    Area: Education
    Fundamentals rights involved: Right to education
    Outcome: Claim upheld
  • India, High Court of Bombay, 29 March 2022, Writ Petition No. 2873 of 2021
    Area: Freedom to conduct a business
    Fundamentals rights involved: Freedom to conduct a business
    Outcome: Claim inadmissible or rejected
  • Load 6 more
List all available cases from India

Breadcrumb

  1. Home
  2. Case Index
  3. India, High Court of Madras, 15 March 2022, Crl. OP No. 5999 of 2022
home

This project and its database have been made possible with the financial support from the World Health Organization

www.covid19litigation.org is run and maintained by the University of Trento
Via Calepina 14, I-38122 Trento (Italy) — P. Iva/C.F. IT-00340520220

Social Media Links

  • twitter
  • linkedin

Terms of use

www.covid19litigation.org
Site purpose

This site is for informational use only. Case law summaries are not legal advices and may not be relied on as such. Anyone seeking for legal advice should obtain appropriate legal counsel.

Site operation

This site may not be fully up-to-date (for example, cases may be reviewed, reversed, or appealed). This site may be taken down at any time without notice. The case law summaries provided on this site may be incomplete or outdated.

Copyright

Any files provided on this site were taken from a source that is, to the University of Trento and its Partners' best knowledge, from a freely available public resource, however, any further use of such files is at the user’s responsibility.

Responsibility

This site is maintained by the University of Trento, with financial support from the World Health Organization (WHO). The University of Trento will not be responsible for any use of the site.

No endorsement

Inclusion of a case on the website does not necessarily involve a view, position, or endorsement by the University of Trento or the WHO, including with respect to any legal matter. The site is not a product of WHO and does not necessarily reflect the views or positions of the WHO.

User account menu

  • Log in

Footer menu

  • Contacts
  • Terms of use
  • Privacy
  • Cookies