Author - Pragya Kumari pursuing B.A.LLB(H) from Amity Law School, Amity University Madhya Pradesh.


Lockdown is not a legal term and is completely different from the term “curfew.” It is nowhere defined under any legal provision. The lockdown was actualized through official requests, starting March 24th, 2020, along with rules under the Disaster Management Act (DMA).With just four hours’ notification, the Government of India forced an across the country lockdown to battle COVID-19.The choice of the Prime Minister was made two days after he had instructed the residents regarding India to follow the Janta Curfew, which was an intentional time limit. The Janta Curfew acted to plan Indian residents for the current lockdown.

It is fascinating to see that when the lockdown was reported, its application was not sourced from any law. It isn’t unequivocally given anyplace that the administration has the ability to pronounce something of this nature. It looks as though the arrangement had first been proclaimed, and afterward the later the legislature thought about which law applied. Announcing the COVID-19 flare-up as an “informed catastrophe” is a first-of-its-sort measure taken to build the extent of government controls that can be utilized so as to settle on brisk managerial choices to battle this illness. It is significant for the legislature to back its strategies and choices with legitimate arrangements as it approves those activities.


The Ministry of Home Affairs distributed the official notice and summoned the lockdown under Section 6 of the Disaster Management Act. The Home Secretary gave rules for this lockdown under his forces in Section 10 of the Disaster Management Act, as the Chairman of the National Executive Committee comprised under Section 8 of the Act.In promotion of the revelation of an across the country lockdown, the Ministry of Home Affairs distributed rules utilizing Section 10(2)(l) of the Disaster Management Act on the measures State and Central Governments must take during this twenty-one-day time frame. The rules set up that a wide range of transport administrations (air, train, and street travel) won’t be operational during this period. Business and private foundations will stay shut, aside from proportion shops, banks, ATMs, media administrations, and telecom organizations.Any infringement of these rules would draw in activity under Section 51 to 60 of the Disaster Management Act, 2005 and Section 188 of the IPC.


It is astonishing to see that the terms ‘lockdown’ and ‘check in time’ have not been characterized under Indian law however are as yet being utilized to reduce the basic right of development revered under Article 19(1) of the Indian Constitution. This can’t be named invalid as this privilege is dependent upon sensible limitations under Article 19(2).

Through the case of ADM Jabalpur it is clear that the right to life (Article 21) and the right against double jeopardy and self-incrimination(Article 20) could not be suspended even during an emergency.Under the constitution, it is during the time of crisis that the amenities of partition of forces between the three wings of government, just as the division of forces between the Centre and the states are legitimately allowed to be obscured. The, endless supply of crisis, allows the Centre not exclusively to give official bearings to the states yet additionally to the governing body in issues, for example, general wellbeing, peace and police, which are in any case state subjects with just a restricted job for the Centre.

In any event, during typical occasions, Article 256 specifies that the Centre can give bearings on the most proficient method to execute laws made by parliament. Article 257 states that the official intensity of the states ought to be practiced in a way that doesn’t “block or preference” the official intensity of the centre. The centre is likewise allowed to give bearings to the states towards this end. Article 355 (which the Janata Party maybe neglected to revise when it cleansed our constitution of ‘interior unsettling influences’) upholds a sacred obligation on the Union to secure the states against “outer hostility” just as “inward aggravations”.

While undeniably the ‘coronavirus pandemic’ would qualify as a circumstance of ‘inner unsettling influence’, it positively can't be secured by any of the three existing grounds in Article 352 which would allow the Central government to announce a crisis, suspend essential rights, including Article 19 which ensures the fundamental opportunities of residents, and control the official and administrative elements of the states.


· The lockdown, with one stroke, resulted in the closure of all establishments and transport. Millions of migrant workers, dependent on daily earnings, were left with no money due to the loss their livelihoods.

· With no arrangements to pay for rent for their make-shift shelters, millions were forced to start marching home on foot, undertaking journeys of hundreds of miles from the major metros to their homes. Some died on the way. Some state governments directed workers to be charged criminally, returned back, or put up in temporary jails.

· In various urban communities, vagrant laborers revolted. These rebellions were subdued by police activity. For Indian travellers, specialists, and understudies abroad for the most part privileged people planes were sent to repatriate them, all at the administration's cost. Transient laborers had no such comfort.

· These activities disregard the vagrant specialists protected right to uniformity and the privilege to life and to move unreservedly all through India.

· COVID-19 was additionally used to prepare shared panic. The press depicted an organization of Muslims, Tablighi Jamaat, being answerable for the infection’s spread. The Government stoked the fire.

· Abusive behaviour at home and sexual maltreatment of youngsters likewise expanded in the COVID-19 period, with no down to earth solutions for the survivors.

· It also led to a downfall in the economy of the country.With organizations shut, gracefully chains disturbed, courses of events expanded and contracts ended, this activity has caused the sorted-out part remarkable monetary misfortunes. In the sloppy division, there has been a finished breakdown with almost no lawful plan of action for the individuals who are influenced.


Although Lockdown is justified by different provisions of law but it was initially based on the “Doctrine of Necessity” which loudly speaks “Necessity Knows No Law.”The DMA was authorized so as to manage catastrophic events as opposed to a pandemic, despite the fact that the administration felt free to proclaim it as a ‘fiasco’.In a perfect situation, the administration ought to have included the states in a feeling of agreeable federalism as opposed to the top down methodology that was embraced.

My view on the concept of lockdown is “that lockdown played a role of a pause button and not the permanent solution of this pandemic.” As we can see that when unlock was announced the rate of the spread of disease grew at a faster pace. Lockdown was to help the government to make necessary preparations for the upcoming alarming situation and not to treat it as a permanent solution for the pandemic.

It is clear that there was no single law available to deal with this pandemic and hence there was a need of various provisions of Indian Penal Code, Criminal Procedure Code, the Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897 and the Disaster Management Act, 2005 to control the current outbreak of this pandemic.


81 views0 comments

Recent Posts

See All

Read More