The Supreme Court asked the Center to ensure that states do not violate national directives. (File)
New Delhi:
The Supreme Court today asked the government of Uttar Pradesh to explain the guidelines issued by the Noida administration on institutional quarantine in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic, observing that they are not ” conform “to national guidelines.
“There can be no guideline contrary to national guidelines,” observed a bench led by judge Ashok Bhushan, adding that any directive contrary to national or state guidelines could lead to chaos.
The district court, while hearing a plea by videoconference which raised the issue of traffic restriction for authorized activities in the National Capital Region (NCR), asked the state government to give it “complete information” on the placement of asymptomatic people in institutional quarantine or at home in Noida.
“It is also brought to our attention that certain directives issued by the magistrate of the Noida district do not comply with national directives and directives issued by the State of Uttar Pradesh,” noted the bench in its order.
While asking the Center to ensure that states do not violate national guidelines, the bench observed that authorities are required to follow the guidelines.
The Center told the judiciary, including judges SK Kaul and MR Shah, that the Minister of the Interior had convened a joint meeting on June 9 with the chief secretaries of Delhi, Uttar Pradesh and Haryana to deal with the issue travel restrictions in the NCR.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Center, said that a status report and the decision made at the meeting are expected to be filed in court the same day.
Mehta said there were no longer any barriers at the borders of Delhi and Haryana, but Uttar Pradesh raised some questions.
The bench noted in its order that Mehta “argued that, although there are no baseless problems with regard to the state of Haryana and Delhi, however, with regard to the state of l “Uttar Pradesh, the Noida district magistrate has issued different instructions. And there are some issues regarding the state border of Uttar Pradesh”.
The lawyer representing Uttar Pradesh told the judiciary that he had already filed a situation report and that he authorized all essential services and that medical personnel, lawyers and representatives of the media were authorized.
Counsel told the court that the state is required to follow national guidelines and that appropriate corrective measures, if any, will be taken by the Noida district magistrate.
The judiciary returned the case for a new hearing on June 17.
At the hearing, counsel for Uttar Pradesh discussed the number of coronavirus cases and deaths from the dreaded virus in Delhi.
He said that more than 30,000 cases and more than 1,000 deaths have been reported in Delhi due to the virus while numbers were low in Noida and Ghaziabad compared to Delhi.
The bank was informed that Delhi has authorized the home quarantine of affected people.
When the bench asked a lawyer appearing for Uttar Pradesh about the quarantine process for asymptomatic people, the lawyer said authorities were following national guidelines.
“Please check and provide us with complete information. There should be no conflict,” observed the bench.
On June 4, the court asked the Center to convene a meeting in Delhi, Uttar Pradesh and Haryana to facilitate interstate movements across the borders of the NCR, amid some restrictions imposed due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
He also observed that there should be a consistent policy in this regard for the NCR.
The plea, filed through lawyer Anindita Mitra, alleged that the “complete sealing of borders” within the NCR and restrictions on the movement of citizens violated new directives from the Interior Ministry ( MHA).
The petition sought to declare unconstitutional measures taken by the district governments of Haryana and Uttar Pradesh that would restrict traffic for authorized activities in areas under the control of the NCR due to << d'ordonnances générales de fermeture des frontières sans exceptions raisonnables >>.
He referred to the April 29 order of the district governments in Haryana, which applies to Gurugram and Sonepat, and to the May 3, public statement by the district governments of Uttar Pradesh regarding Gautam Budh Nagar and Ghaziabad .
