Authorised police for COVID-19 norms violation fines to curb spread of virus: AAP govt to HC

AAP government Friday defended in Delhi High Court its COVID-19 regulations empowering police officers of Sub-Inspector and above ranks to impose fines for violating quarantine rms, saying it was a special measure taken to prevent spre of coronavirus.

Delhi government told a bench of Chief Justice D N Patel and Justice Prateek Jalan that fines under COVID-19 regulations are t in nature of punishments under Indian Penal Code (IPC), rar y are preventive measures contemplated in accordance with Epidemic Diseases (ED) Act of 1897.

submission was me before bench in an affidavit, filed through Delhi government standing counsel Ramesh Singh, which stated that under ED Act state is empowered to take such special measures to prevent spre of epidemic diseases.

affidavit was filed in response to a PIL challenging a provision in regulations which empowers police officers of sub-inspector rank or above to impose fines on anyone violating COVID-19 quarantine rms.

plea by a lawyer, Sonia Rana, has contended that imposing fines amounts to handing down a punishment which can only be awarded by a judge, t a police officer.

Under Delhi Epidemic Diseases (Manment of COVID-19) Regulations of 2020, an authorised person is empowered to impose a fine of Rs 500 for first time and a furr fine of Rs 1,000 for repeated violation of quarantine rules -- t maintaining social distancing, t wearing masks, spitting in public places and consumption of tobacco products in public places.

petition, filed through vocate Dhananjay Singh Sehrawat, has sought quashing of provision in regulations which empowers police officers to impose fines.

Terming petition as "misconceived", Delhi government has contended that imposition of penalty or coercive act under or enactments including COVID-19 regulations cant be treated as relatable to IPC merely because similar provisions are to be found in IPC.

"Hence, it is denied that a police officer has been labelled as a 'judge' since se fines are t 'punishments' as provided in IPC," government has said.

It has also contended that ED Act permits a state to enact regulations to prevent outbreak and spre of epidemic diseases and it does t say that a public hearing is required to be given before implementing provisions of such regulations.

It has furr said that since regulation was framed to prevent spre of COVID-19, "in such circumstances designation of authorised officers to execute and implement legislative policy cant be said to be excessive delegation".

bench listed matter for furr hearing on September 28.

Im credits: PTI