CONSTITUTIONAL VALIDITY OF COVID-19: FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF A PERSON- By Jatin Jaggi

Since the whole nation is fighting this epidemic disease, that is the Coronavirus. As a result, the current government decided to close, and this closure continues. But have we ever thought about the rights of these migrant workers? India is a country where millions of migrant workers are present, and at this disastrous time, these workers face real problems. So in this article, we will address whether there are rights that have violated Article 14, 19 and 21?

1.Is there any violation of Article 19(1) (d)-

As after reading India's constitution, many of us went through the golden triangle discussed in the Maneka Gandhi case. Among them is Article 19 (1) (d) which provides for this right to trade and the right to move freely throughout the territory of India. So what the public believes, in general, is that there was a violation of the right i.e. move freely, but under Article 19 (5) and Article 19 (6) provides for an exception whereby the state can place reasonable restrictions in the interest of the general public provided that this is done by the law that was enacted.

1.1 Is Article 19(5) & (6) is unreasonable in the context topublic policy?

Many of us may think that this Article 19 (5) and 19 (6) is an unreasonable law but it has already been discussed in BannariAmman Sugar vs CTO (Appeal (civil)  8605 of 2002, 22 November, 2004) where the Supreme Court has declared that the law does not become unreasonable just because it worksharshly.

As in the main case of the Supreme Court, the restriction of freedom of movement was said to be reasonable only if it was of temporary duration.

2.Whether there is a violation of Article 21-

Article 21 states that No person may be deprived of his or her personal liberty except under a procedure established by law.

In State of Punjab vs M.C. Chawla (on 17 December, 1996), Article 21 was interpreted broadly, stating that “the right to health is an integral part of the right to life. Therefore, the government is constitutionally obligated to provide the health facility, and therefore the state has a positive obligation under Article 21 to swing. In working to respond to public health emergencies to protect people's lives, because the right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India is the most fundamental right, without life there can be no freedom, so to protect the part of the freedom, we need to save lives first. So to save people's lives, this closure is necessary.

Just as in entry 29 of the concurrent list- which is read to prevent the transmission of infectious or infectious diseases or pests that affect men, animals or plants from one country to another.

Entry 29 of the concurrent list enables central and state governments to legislate matters related to the prevention of communicable or communicable diseases that spread from one state to another. Entry to the powers of the legislature is not limited to mere public order or public health, but allows the passage of any relevant legislation, as long as it is to prevent illness. So to prevent this infectious disease, this closure is necessary and for this reason, it also does not violate Article 21.

Also, the Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897, enables the state government to put in place temporary regulations for the public or anyone to consider to prevent an outbreak and spread of the disease.

Then there is an appropriate procedure whereby the law is taken. So, if Parliament passes a law, it can take away the personal freedom of the person who has it.

Hence, even if the right to life is abandoned with personal dignity and freedom, this serves the public interest, as a ban is implemented at the national level. After all, the principle of necessity declares loudly and clearly that "necessity does not know a law" whatever its value, if we are willing to accept that these unforeseen times we are tempted to act after the four corners of our Basic Law, at least let us not lose focus on authorization Crucial to both the Epidemiology and the Disaster Management Act 2005.

3.Whether section 2(a) violates Article 14 of the Indian Constitution-

Section 2(a) does not violate Article 14 of the Indian Constitution

As the closure was declared nationwide for the benefit of the general public, there are no arbitrary measures. Consequently, it does not violate Article 14 of the Indian Constitution.

Section 2(a) of the Epidemic Diseases Act [2a. Central government powers. - When the central government is convinced that India or any part of it visits or threatens to spread any serious epidemic disease and that the regular provisions of the law in force at present are not sufficient to prevent the spread of this disease, the central government may take measures and establish regulations to inspect any A ship or ship departing or arriving at any port in 2 [the lands to which this law extends] and for such detention therein, or any person intending to sail in, or access to it as necessary.]

The steps taken by the government to prevent illness were in the public interest not in violation of Article 14 because there is no violation of 14 and there is no unequal treatment with migrant workers. As stated in Article 14 of the Indian Constitution that equality before the law, the state may not deprive anyone of equality before the law or equal protection of laws within the territory of India.

In a landmark case of The State Of Bombay and Ots vs F.N Balsara ( 25 May,1951 AIR 318, 1951 SCR 682), the Supreme Court held that in the case of equal treatment, the different Article 14 does not apply. Article 14 prohibits class legislation but allows for reasonable classification.

Conclusion

From this I would like to say that there is no violation of 14 because the closure takes place at the state level and not for a specific group, which indicates that the closure is primarily for the public good and there is no arbitrariness that may be clear that it came as a reasonable test of equality in the case of Maneka Gandhi.

No violation of the Golden Triangle principle was perceived, as Maneka Gandhi states that whenever there is a violation of the 21st century, Article 19 and Article 14 must be read together

Therefore, every citizen of India is required to stay at home and abide by the law. COVID-19 gets defeated by loneliness and compliance with the law.