2021 (8) TMI 1128 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court emphasizes practical COVID measures over enforceable directives. Stay issued, Amicus Curiae appointed.

STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH Versus INHUMAN CONDITION AT QUARANTINE CENTRES AND FOR PROVIDING BETTER TREATMENT TO CORONA POSITIVE

The Supreme Court acknowledged the well-intentioned nature of the High Court's directions but emphasized the importance of practical implementation. It ... Inhuman condition of quarantine centres and for providing better treatment to corona positive - HELD THAT:- It is a normal practice, which is also desirable, that such matters of public importance are dealt with by the Bench presided over by the Chief Justice, but since the constitution of Benches is the prerogative of the Chief Justice, it would be for the Chief Justice of the High Court to consider such aspect and pass appropriate orders. Further while again appreciating the efforts of the judges of the High Court in looking to the matter in depth while passing orders, we are of the opinion that the High Court should normally consider the possibility of the implementation of the directions given by it, and such directions which are incapable of being implemented should be avoided. The doctrine of impossibility, would be equally applicable to Court orders as well. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances, the impugned order dated 17.05.2021 is stayed. However, we make it clear that further proceedings before the High Court are not being stayed - this matter be now listed on 14.07.2021. Issues Involved:Challenge to High Court order regarding management of COVID-19 facilities and treatment.Analysis:The State of Uttar Pradesh filed a petition challenging a High Court order concerning the management of COVID-19 facilities and treatment. The State expressed its desire to implement the directions but highlighted practical challenges in doing so. The Solicitor General pointed out specific directives, such as providing ambulances and upgrading medical facilities, which were deemed unfeasible within the given timelines due to the sheer scale of implementation required. The State's concern was that failure to comply could lead to legal repercussions for officials. Additionally, observations made by the Court about the existing medical system being inadequate were criticized for potentially demoralizing healthcare workers.The Supreme Court acknowledged the well-intentioned nature of the High Court's directions but emphasized the importance of practical implementation. It noted that certain directives, though made in the public interest, were beyond the State's current capabilities and should be treated as advice rather than enforceable orders. The Court emphasized that the State should focus on implementing feasible measures to combat the pandemic effectively. The Solicitor General also raised concerns about the High Court's jurisdiction in issuing directives with national and international implications, suggesting that policy decisions should be left to the Executive, which has access to expert opinions and comprehensive data.Furthermore, the Supreme Court suggested that matters of public importance, especially those with transnational ramifications, should be carefully considered before issuing directives. It highlighted the doctrine of impossibility, indicating that Court orders should be practical and achievable. The Court stayed the challenged order but allowed further proceedings to continue, appointing an Amicus Curiae to assist in the matter. The case was scheduled for a future hearing to address the issues comprehensively.In conclusion, the judgment emphasized the need for practical and implementable directives in managing public health crises, urging courts to consider the feasibility of their orders. It highlighted the importance of balancing public interest with the practical limitations faced by the State authorities in executing such directives effectively.