advertisement
The Haryana and Chandigarh governments have been criticised for their decision to set up ‘temporary jails’ for anyone who violates the current lockdown orders in place amid the coronavirus outbreak. Several Supreme Court lawyers, including Rebecca John, Sanjay Hegde and Colin Gonsalves, have deemed this move “draconian” and unempathetic towards the poor.
While Haryana is still considering converting its indoor stadiums into these ‘temporary jails’, the cricket stadium in Chandigarh’s Sector 16 and the Manimajra sports complex have already been set up as ‘prisons’ for those who defy the lockdown.
Following a meeting with the chief secretaries of Punjab, Maharashtra, Gujarat and Delhi on the issue of the exodus of migrant workers, Haryana Director General of Police issued a notification saying, "Directions are being issued by the State Home Department to declare big indoor stadiums or other similar facilities as temporary jails for people who refuse to obey the lockdown orders.”
However, speaking to The Quint, DGP (Haryana) Manoj Yadava said, “As of now, we are not setting up any temporary jail. It is just a possibility for the long run.” He added that the labourers, who have been walking long distances to reach their hometowns after being stranded following the lockdown, are being encouraged to stay in the “temporary shelters” and relief camps set up near the borders by the Haryana government.
Chandigarh’s home secretary Arun Kumar Gupta had issued the order for temporary jails on 24 March, a day after Punjab Governor-cum-Administrator of Chandigarh, VP Singh Badnore imposed an indefinite curfew in the union territory.
He added that the time for which any violator is kept in these ‘temporary jails’ depends on the graveness of his violations.
Both Chandigarh and Haryana have invoked the Epidemic Diseases Act 1897 which empowers the State and the Central governments to take measures as may be necessary to control the further spread of an epidemic.
Meanwhile, the Supreme Court last week asked states to consider release of undertrials and prisoners charged or convicted for crimes where maximum punishment is less than seven years to decongest jails amid the coronavirus pandemic.
Senior advocate Rebecca John said, “I can imagine you are opening up a larger area but the terminology used “temporary jail” is horrifying.”
“I think what this unprecedented lockdown has shown is the stark inequality in our society and in our governance. No provision is made for the poor,” she added.
“There is definite legal viability and precedence of specific places being designated as jails in times of crisis,” said senior Supreme Court lawyer Sanjay Hegde.
When asked what he thinks of using such a law on the migrant workers who have to fend for themselves amid the lockdown, he quotes French novelist Anatole France: “The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets,and to steal bread.” Which is to say that while the law is applicable to all in society, it favours the rich. And with the limited options available to the poor, sometimes breaking the law is the only way to survive.
Senior advocate Colin Gonsalves also slammed this move saying using it on poor and hungry migrants is not only “draconian” but also “fascistic”.
(At The Quint, we question everything. Play an active role in shaping our journalism by becoming a member today.)