Not wearing mask no violation if no harm to others: High Court

Saurabh Malik

Chandigarh, December 14

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has made it clear that individuals cannot be held criminally responsible for actions that are not clearly established as offences. The ruling came as Justice Anoop Chitkara quashed an FIR in a case alleging violation of Covid norms after ruling that a person walking alone without a mask could not be said to have violated the norms.

Justice Chitkara also made it clear that not wearing a mask would not tantamount to violation in the absence of any harm or obstruction caused to anybody. The assertions came during the hearing of a petition by Shubham against UT Chandigarh for quashing the FIR registered on April 12, 2020, at Sector 19 police station under 188 of the IPC.

The Bench was told that a proclamation was issued on April 9, 2020, under the provisions of the Disaster Management Act. Its violation was made punishable under Section 188. Referring to the prosecution story, Justice Chitkara observed it was contended that the petitioner was seen without a mask on a public street at 6.30 am on April 12, 2020, when the proclamation was in force. He did not cooperate and argued when police officials who asked him to wear the mask.

After hearing rival contentions, Justice Chitkara asserted even if every allegation levelled by the police official was accepted as correct at its face value, it was still not alleged that the petitioner was in somebody else’s company.

It was clear that the petitioner had gone for a morning walk and was strolling all alone. It was also evident that the petitioner had not gone towards the police officials. Rather, the police officials had come to him after noticing that he was not wearing a mask.

Justice Chitkara asserted: “At the beginning of the outbreak of the Covid pandemic, the absence of scientific data about the mode of its spread, and the ways by which it was contagious, was not known. At that time, the petitioner was walking alone, so even if he was not wearing a mask, he did not commit any offence that would violate Section 188 IPC. Simply because the promulgation dated April 9, 2020, stated that if there is any violation of any of the portion of promulgation, it would amount to an offence under Section 188 of the IPC would not ipso facto make it punishable…,”

Justice Chitkara asserted it was not the complainant’s case that the petitioner was in any manner instrumental in causing any injury by spreading the Covid. Besides, there was no evidence like medical record to indicate that he was tested for Covid or had any visible symptoms of it.