top of page
  • Writer's pictureTHE DEN

Terming Delhi govt’s order of making masks mandatory in cars as “absurd”, Delhi HC asks why?

|IE|


Terming Delhi government’s order of making it mandatory for those travelling alone in cars to wear face masks as “absurd”, the Delhi High Court Tuesday questioned why the said order was still prevailing and asked the State why it was not being withdrawn.

“Take instructions,” the division bench of Justices Vipin Sangh and Jasmeet Singh told a government counsel. The observation came after senior advocate Rahul Mehra, who represents the government in a matter in which the court has been monitoring the Covid situation in Delhi, mentioned the order before the court and said that the same needs to be revisited. Mehra was reminded by the court that it was a government order and that a single bench had only upheld it last year. “It’s a Delhi government order. Why don’t you withdraw it,” said the court after Mehta submitted that it is a wrong order even if passed by the government. The court continued, “It is absurd actually. You’re sitting in your own car and you must wear a mask?”

Four petitions were filed in 2020 before the court challenging the imposition of a fine of Rs 500 – the same stands now increased to Rs 2,000 – on the petitioners, for not wearing face a mask while travelling alone in a private car. In her judgment passed last year in April, Justice Prathiba M Singh upheld the government decision and said that a person travelling in a vehicle or car, even if alone, could be exposed to the virus in various ways. “The person may have visited a market, or workplace, or hospital or a busy street, prior to entering the car or vehicle. Such a person may be required to keep windows open for the purposes of ventilation. The vehicle may also be required to be stopped at a traffic signal and the person could purchase any product by rolling down the window. The person may thus be exposed to a street-side vendor. If a person is travelling in the car alone, the said status is not a permanent one,” the court had said.



(Except for the headline and the pictorial description, this story has not been edited by THE DEN staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)


bottom of page