The high court held that the case of the accused would be covered by Section 43 of NDPS Act and not by Section 42. Here, recovery was made from the accused while they were in a jeep at a public place. On April 16, the Supreme Court held that a private vehicle is not a "public place" as per Section 43 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychedelic Substances Act in the case Boota Singh v State of Haryana. When private vehicle did not become a 'public place' under NDPS Act If this practice reduces the risk of corona transmission even by a single percentage, let that happen – this seems to have been the intention which drove the judgment. In other words, the Court was exercising an extra caution, taking note of the grave pandemic situation. While there are views doubting the rationale of mandating wearing of facemask during lone travel in a car, it is to be noted that the High Court was essentially refusing to interfere with the regulations issued by the authorities under the Epidemic Diseases Act and Disaster Management Act. Thus, a vehicle even if occupied by only one person would constitute a 'public place'and wearing of a mask there in,would be compulsory" "A vehicle which is moving across the city, even if occupied at a given point in time by one person, would be a public place owing to the immediate risk of exposure to other persons under varying circumstances. Thus, it cannot be said that merely because the person is travelling alone in a car, the car would not be a public place", it said. There are several possibilities in which while sitting alone in the car one could be exposed to the outside world. "The droplets carrying the virus can infect others even after a few hours after the occupant of the car has released the same. The Court said that there was a possibility of the droplets released by a person while driving alone in a car infecting others who may enter the vehicle hours later. To determine what constitutes a `public place' the manner in which the Coronavirus can spread is the crucial part". "…the word 'public place', has to be interpreted in this case in the context of the COVID pandemic. Referring to precedents, the Court said that the meaning of the term 'public place' changes from context to context. A single bench of Justice Prathiba M Singh held that a private vehicle will amount to a public place in the context of COVID-19 pandemic regulation. It was in the case Saurabh Sharma and others v Sub Divisional Magistrate (East) and others that the Delhi High Court held that wearing of facemask was compulsory even while driving alone in a personal car. Though at first blush, these judgments seem conflicting, a deeper analysis will enable one to reconcile with them, accepting the interesting manners in which law operates. While the Delhi High Court held last week that a private car amounts to a public place in order to hold that wearing of face mask is compulsory even when travelling alone, the Supreme Court held in an NDPS case yesterday that a private vehicle is not a public place. Two recent judgments on the issue whether a private car is a public place are examples. So, one might find different, if not totally conflicting, answers in law to similar questions.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |