Business Environment and Ethical Practices

PSDA - ASSIGNMENT IV

Legal Environment in Covid 19 times

-By Yatharth Khurana, Roll no 13, BBA-LLB, 2nd year

Health and safety are everyone's priority today as COVID-19's unprecedented impact continues
to grow each day. The outbreak of Covid-19 has left its impact on litigation and arbitration in
various ways, ranging from an increased use of remote hearings to general court closures,
depending on the countries and institutions concerned. With a view to ensure minimal
disruptions, Courts around the world have swiftly embraced technology, including mandatory
electronic filing, restricting hearings to only critical cases and conducting them through video
conferencing. Although it may necessitate the creation of a specialized advisory vertical focused
on guiding businesses in navigating various challenges that will come up- both in the long term,
and the short term; the proactive steps taken by Courts, both in India and abroad, have made it
comparatively easier to effectively strategize and manage Litigation. With only four hours’
notice, the Government of India imposed a nationwide lockdown to combat COVID-19, which
began on March 24th, 2020. The lockdown was implemented through executive orders, together
with guidelines under the Disaster Management Act (DMA). Only essential services, such as
those related to security, government, food, medical supplies, and municipal cleaning, were
permitted to continue operations, albeit sometimes in a curtailed manner. Inter-state and district
borders were sealed. All persons, except those engaged in essential services, were mandated to
stay at home and observe social distancing. Testing, quarantine, and contact tracing were
employed to detect and prevent further transmission of the virus. Breach of orders was criminally
punishable. In addition, state (provincial) governments issued regulations under the Epidemic
Diseases Act of 1897 to further enforce the lockdown measures, including for testing,
quarantine/isolation of individuals, and sealing off areas. The COVID-19 crisis poses huge
challenges to human rights and the rule of law. The pandemic also affects lawyers all around the
world in their daily professional activities, which causes a great impact on the legal profession. I
have tried to create a COVID-19 series to provide insight into the effect of the COVID-19 crisis
on lawyers all around the world. The lockdown has been marred by the large number of incidents
involving police brutality and torture. This has been reported from every state currently affected
by COVID-19. We found that in numerous cases police baton charged people who were leaving
their home to seek essential services such as food supplies and household provisions. Video
footage has revealed numerous cases of policemen singling out individuals and brutally thrashing
them in public spaces. As a result, there have been reports from several states of deaths on
account of such severe police beatings. The legal sanction for such police impunity was drawn
from the imposition of section 144 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.Pc) in every state along
with bringing into force the Epidemic and Disease Act 1897. Section 144 of Cr.Pc. prohibits the
unlawful assembly of four or more persons, this section has been notoriously used by the police
to prevent protest and prevent riots and unrest. This section was imposed in relation to the
Epidemic and Disease Act 1897 which allowed the police to book an uncounted number of
people for the violation of the lockdown. In Uttar Pradesh alone, in the first 15 days of lockdown
more than ten thousand cases were registered along with other draconian provisions of the Indian
penal code. Even though the provisions mentioned in section 144 of Cr.Pc and the Epidemic and
Disease Act 1897 happened to be bailable, a large number of people were arrested by police.
Those arrested were said to be released only on the payment of bribes. A more severe
implication of the misuse of these provisions was the arrest of daily wage earners and poor
migrant workers who were stranded in various states and were booked under these provisions.
Access to justice was limited due to the closure of courts and the targeting of lawyers. Lawyers
looking to respond to cases of human rights violations were limited not only due to the closure of
judicial complexes but also road blockades. Lawyers were not allowed to open their chambers in
many of the Indian states for more than two months. Being unable to open their chambers has
severe consequences for the ongoing struggle for human rights. Families of arrested persons will
remain deprived of legal aid as not only can they not visit the lawyer’s chamber’s; they are also
prevented from visiting the police station to file complaints or secure release of their family
members. This has given a free hand to the state police which has continued to arbitrarily arrest
and book people without following the relevant legal proceedings. Due to the police brutality and
torture, a migrant labor hanged himself in district Lakhimpur. Due to the lockdown the family
was unable to access the courts as the court complex and chambers were shut. Lawyers pursuing
several proceedings, that were pending in various courts, suffered greatly due to the restrictions
imposed on travel and closure of courts. They were only able to reach the victims over phone.
Another issue faced by the common man was the invasive technology that was employed to
create lists of persons suspected to be infected with COVID-19. Drones were deployed to
monitor compliance by quarantined individuals. Smartphone applications were being used for
detection and contact-tracing. One application, Aarogya Setu, was required to be downloaded by
all persons employed in workplaces, which made itself open to legal challenge. In the
Puttaswamy (Privacy) judgment of 2017, it was held that to sustain a privacy restricting action
the State had to show that, a) the restrictions were sanctioned by law; b) were made pursuant to a
legitimate state aim; c) there exists a rational relationship between the purpose and the
restriction; and d) that the State has chosen the “least restrictive” measure available to achieve its
objective, all of which are absent in Aarogya Setu. The Puttaswamy (Aadhar) judgment of 2018
had also mandated that there should be a data protection law, which is also missing in the case of
Aarogya Setu.. And the Supreme Court ruled in Parmanad Katara that private hospitals must also
admit non-COVID-19 emergency patients. In practice, however, private hospitals have not been
admitting non-COVID-19 emergency patients.