GUWAHATI: As the Centre takes note of some states’ “refusal” to lift restrictions on inter-state and intra-state movement of people and goods, experts agree that states like Meghalaya are within their rights to impose curbs if it concerns public safety but the central government has the final say under the Disaster Management Act, 2005.
“The Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897 provides teeth to state governments to make regulations for preventing and curtailing outbreak of diseases. So I absolutely don’t agree that there is a violation when this Act is also in place,” V.G.K Kynta, senior advocate, High Court of Meghalaya, told The Shillong Times on Saturday.
Kynta said he was in “total agreement” with the decision of some state governments, including Meghalaya, to impose restrictions on inter-state and intra-state movement of people and goods.
“In fact, state governments have plenary powers when it comes to public health and sanitation, as these are state subjects as envisaged in List II of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India,” he said.
At the same time, the senior advocate pointed out that state governments are provided powers under chapter III of the National Disaster Management Act, 2005.
Supreme Court lawyer, Upamanyu Hazarika, on the other hand, said the Centre has overriding powers to issue directions to all states under the National Disaster Management Act, 2005 and all state governments have to comply with it.
“It is a fact that there has been no uniformity in policies followed by local authorities, district administration and state governments in terms of movement of people and goods, thereby impeding economic activities. States can impose curbs but any directive by the Centre over-rides whatever decision the states take,” Hazarika said.
Kynta however agreed that the guidelines regarding freedom of movement throughout the territory of India derive its genesis from Article 19(1) clause (d) to the Constitution.
“But we cannot forget the fact that state governments, in terms of Article 19(5) and in the interest of the general public, can impose reasonable restrictions on the rights conferred on by Article 19(1)(d) of the Constitution,” he said.
“I will strongly suggest that the state governments act in the interest of the general public by taking into consideration the local conditions. Restriction of any form hurts, but this is not the occasion to fret. COVID-19 cases are on the rise and we don’t know when this episode will be over,” Kynta added.
Chairman of the Grand Council of Chiefs of Meghalaya, John F. Kharshiing said that in these unprecedented times when peoples’ lives and been adversely affected, states have imposed reasonable restrictions so as to balance lives and livelihoods.
“Meghalaya has only opted to close for a week out of four weeks. A serious shortage of manpower in healthcare looms and unless the correct vaccine is found, the world might be staring at an extreme pandemic,” Kharshiing, who is also the adviser and spokesperson, Federation of Khasi States, said.