[COVID-19] All persons stepping out should carry Aadhaar card; lockdown violators should be subject to RT-PCR tests: Bombay High Court

The Aurangabad Bench of Bombay High Court ordered on Monday that in view of the restrictions in place due to COVID-19, people who step out of their houses either on foot or on vehicles, except during the relaxation hours from 7 am to 11 am from Monday to Friday, should carry Aadhaar card. .Those who fail to comply with the same can be booked by road traffic police for relevant criminal offences, a Bench of Justices Ravindra V Ghuge and BU Debadwar added. .Even doctors, medical or paramedical staff are expected to carry their Aadhaar cards, the Bench clarified. .These directions will apply only to twelve districts in the State which fall within the jurisdiction of the Aurangabad Bench of the High Court. .Further, the Court also held that any person who violates the COVID guidelines/ directions expected to be followed by them should be subjected to an RT-PCR test (used for detection of COVID) and the violators will also be expected to disclose their mobile number or landline number. .The directions were passed by the Bench in a suo motu case registered by it in relation to COVID issues after it came across newspaper reports regarding worrying aspects concerning the pandemic situation in the State. .Apart from the above, the Court also directed that a person stepping out of the house should ensure that he/ she is wearing a mask properly covering the mouth and nose.Any person not wearing a mask, or improperly wearing a mask (like on the chin, not covering the nose, but only the mouth) will be booked for violating the guidelines under criminal offences, the Court said. .Justice Ghuge further remarked that he had observed that when people are caught for violating guidelines, they use their proximity to "MLAs or MPs" in order to escape punishment from the authority who booked them for the violation..In order to stop this, the Court ordered that "any person, who may be a people's representative or holding a position in a political party, will not exert any pressure or influence any person of law enforcement agency which was imposing penalty for violation of restrictions". .The Court clarified that this will be considered "an obstruction in duty of those officers"..As regards the requirement of citizens who lost their relatives to COVID, the Court directed the Divisional Collector of Aurangabad and the Municipal Commissioners to consider building electric furnaces for the crematoriums.."There should be constant check by these authorities to ensure that these citizens who lost their relatives are not harassed by extortion of money for the supplies or for performing rites," the Court directed..The Bench, however, allowed the authorities to carry on with the procedure of obtaining a No-Objection from the police station in order to attend funerals as the measure had been issued to restrict the number of people attending funerals..Regarding black marketing of Remdesivir, the Court called for strict action by authorities against those found selling the drug at a higher price. Further, if any state instrumentality is found selling or giving out these injections in an unauthorised manner, they too were not to be spared, the Court emphasised. .The Court also noted that there seemed to be equally effective alternatives to the Remdesivir injection which were not being publicised as much as the Remdesivir drug, leading to increase in demand and shortage of supply in Remdesivir. Such demand could be met by the authorities by publicising the alternatives, the Court suggested. .The Court also sought specific details on the status of installation of oxygen plants in private hospitals and providing Rapid Antigen tests in primary health care centres of rural areas. These have to be furnished by the next date of hearing. .The Court also made it clear that the intention of their orders is not to interfere with the policy of ensuring equal distribution of COVID supplies throughout the country."We intend to monitor the distribution of the supplies in the 12 districts in a manner that the equal distribution policy is not disturbed," the Court clarified. .Before concluding the hearing, the Bench asked Advocate Satyajeet S Bora, Amicus Curiae appointed by the Court, to give his suggestions when the case is next heard."The Bar members are likely to flood you with suggestions, and those may be good. This is not an adversarial litigation, this is for the people," the Court reminded. .[Read order here].[Read live updates of the hearing below]