Menu

Case Comment, Publications

Table of Contents

ABSTRACT ………………………………………………………………………………………………………….2

INTRODUCTION ………………………………………………………………………………………………….2

FACTS OF THE CASE…………………………………………………………………………………………3

ISSUES RAISED IN THE CASE…………………………………………………………..4

CONTENTION…………………………………………………………………………………………………..6

RATIONALE………………… ………………………………………………………………………………..7

DEFECTS SEEN IN THE CASE ………………………………………………………………………………7

INFERENCE…………………………………. …………………………………………………………..9

REFERENCES………………………………………………………………………………9

ABSTRACT

“Right to health has found its apt place as an ingredient of the sacrosanct and topmost right to life in the scheme of fundamental rights within the constitutional interpretation

and in the international human rights law as an indivisible right”.

“Alakh Alok Srivastava’s” petitions highlight a critical need for assistance for migrant workers amid the COVID-19 pandemic. When lockdown measures were implemented, many workers returned to their home villages long distances. Their journey has undergone with such great challenges as they faced shortages of food, clean water, and safe places to rest.

In response, the Supreme Court took action to address the hardships faced by migrant workers. The court directed the government to implement strategies aimed for the establishment of over 21,000 relief camps designed to offer shelter, food, and medical assistance to approximately 666,291 migrants.

Additionally, the court observed that proactive measures by the government had effectively halted the mass migration of workers, largely thanks to transportation assistance and officials discouraging further travel. Furthermore, the court emphasized the importance of combating misinformation that instigated panic among workers, insisting on strict penalties for individuals who spread false information.

Overall, the directives from the Supreme Court are pivotal in safeguarding the well-being of migrant workers during this unprecedented crisis. By ensuring that their essential needs for food, shelter, and healthcare are met, the court aims to stabilize the situation on the ground.

INTRODUCTION

The writ petition(s) were filed by the petitioners, who are advocates practicing in the Supreme Court, in the public interest for getting a solution to their grievances, particularly of the migrant laborers who along with their families walked hundreds of kilometers from their workplace to their homes in search of foods and remained starved stranded in different areas of the country during the nationwide lockdown imposed to curb the spread of the COVID-19 pandemic.

This created a sense of concern nationwide to build government shelter homes/accommodations and provide these laborers the basic amenities like food, clean drinking water, medicines, etc.

The Supreme Court took up both the writ petitions together, as the issues raised were similar. The Court heard the submissions made by the Solicitor General appearing on behalf of the Union of India regarding the steps taken by the government to address the concerns of the migrant workers during the lockdown period.

FACTS OF THE CASE

The case involves two writ petitions (Writ Petition Nos. 468/2020 and 469/2020) filed in the public interest by advocates “Alakh Alok Srivastava” and others before the Supreme Court of India.

“Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, Director General, the World Health Organisation

(WHO), recently stated:”

“We are not just fighting an epidemic; we are fighting an infodemic. Fake news spreads faster and more easily than this virus, and is just as

dangerous.”

The petitioners highlighted the plight of thousands of migrant laborers who, along with their families, were forced to walk hundreds of kilometers from their workplaces to their villages/towns due to loss of livelihood and fear of starvation during the nationwide COVID-19 lockdown imposed by the Government of India.

The main concern was: 1. To shift these migrant workers to government shelter homes/accommodations. 2. Providing them with basic amenities like food, clean drinking water, medicines, etc.

The Supreme Court took up both the writ petitions together, as the issues raised were similar. The Court heard submissions from, Mr. Tushar Mehta, the Learned Solicitor General, appearing on behalf of the Union of India. The Union of India, in its status report, mentioned the various steps taken by the government to prevent the spread of COVID-19 and to address the needs of the lower strata of society, including Constituting an expert group under, Dr. Vinod Paul, Member of NITI Aayog, to guide the prevention of the spread of the virus. They are announcing a relief package of Rs. 1.70 lakh crore under the Pradhan Mantri Garib Kalyan Yojana and formulating other schemes to ensure that the persons in need are cared for.

The Court noted that the initial reaction of the state governments and union territories was to transport migrant laborers from their borders to their villages, but afterwads  the Ministry of Home Affairs issued a circular prohibiting the movement of migrant laborers, as it would cause more damage than help in preventing the spread of the virus. Furthermore, the court noted that a direction was issued to the state governments to stop the migrant laborers wherever they were and shift them to nearby shelter homes/relief camps, and to ensure that medical tests were conducted and necessary treatment provided.

ISSUES OF THE CASE
  1. The petitioners highlighted the plight of thousands of migrant laborers who, along with their families, were forced to walk hundreds of kilometers from their workplaces to their villages/towns due to loss of livelihood and fear of starvation during the nationwide COVID-19 lockdown.
  2. The petitioners sought direction from the authorities to shift the migrant laborers to government shelter homes/accommodations and provide them with basic amenities like food, clean drinking water, medicines, etc.
  3. The Court was concerned about the initial reaction of the state governments and union territories to transport migrant laborers from their borders to their villages. The Court also noted the various steps taken by the government, as mentioned in the status report filed by the Union of India, to address the needs of the lower strata of society and prevent the spread of COVID-19.
  4. The key issue was to balance the public health concerns of preventing the spread of COVID-19 and the welfare of the migrant laborers who were facing extreme hardships due to the nationwide lockdown.

CONTENTION

Contention from Petitioner’s (“Alakh Alok Srivastava”)-

The petitioners contended that thousands of migrant laborers, along with their families, were forced to walk hundreds of kilometers from their workplaces to their villages/towns due to loss of livelihood and fear of starvation during the nationwide COVID-19 lockdown. The petitioners contended that there was a need to shift these migrant workers to government shelter homes/accommodations and provide them with basic amenities like food, clean drinking water, medicines, etc. The petitioners contended that there was a need to balance the public health concerns of preventing the spread of COVID-19 and the welfare of the migrant laborers who were facing extreme hardships due to the nationwide lockdown.

The petitioners contended that the initial reaction of the state governments and union territories to transport migrant laborers from their borders to their villages, and the subsequent circular issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs prohibiting the movement of migrant laborers, were not adequate to address the plight of the migrant workers.

Contention from Respondent’s (UOI) –

In the case of “Alakh Alok Srivastava vs. Union of India”, the primary contentions from the respondents emphasized the government’s proactive measures which are aimed at managing the crisis effectively. The government presented evidence of its quick response following the announcement of the lockdown, outlining a series of actions designed to prevent the spread of the virus while simultaneously safeguarding the livelihood and health of migrant workers.

The Union of India contended that it had mobilized resources to set up over 21,000 relief camps throughout the country, which served essential services, including food, clean drinking water, and medical care, ensuring that those stranded during the lockdown were not left to face dire conditions alone. A relief package, totalling Rs.1.70 lakh crore, under the Pradhan Mantri Garib Kalyan Yojana, is aimed at supporting the most vulnerable segments of society.

Additionally, the Union of India contested the notion that unchecked migration was solely a result of neglect and also argued that the situation was exacerbated by panic instigated by misleading information disseminated through various media channels.

Reports showed that the mobility of laborers was driven by fears and rumors that the lockdown would last longer than initially stated, leading many to flee to their home villages under the belief that they were in imminent danger of being trapped in urban areas without support. The government reiterated its commitment to curbing the spread of false information, highlighting its plans to impose penalties on those responsible for creating panic through disinformation campaigns, the respondent pointed out that the measures implemented were not only practical but were also based on guidance from expert committees formed to address the pandemic effectively. By taking these steps, the Union of India sought to demonstrate its dedication to upholding both public safety and the rights of its citizens during this challenging time.

RATIONALE
  1. The Supreme Court successfully acknowledged the plight of thousands of migrant laborers who were forced to walk hundreds of kilometers to their villages/towns due to loss of livelihood and fear of starvation during the nationwide COVID-19 lockdown.
  2. The Court recognized the need to balance the public health concerns of preventing the spread of COVID-19 and the welfare of the migrant laborers who were facing extreme hardships.
  3. The Court noticed that the initial reaction of the state governments and union territories to transport migrant laborers from their borders to their villages, and the subsequent circular issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs prohibiting the movement of migrant laborers, were not adequate to address the plight of the migrant workers.
  4. The Court acknowledged the need to shift the migrant workers to government shelter homes/accommodations and provide them with basic amenities like food, clean drinking water, medicines, etc.
  5. The Court aimed to ensure a coordinated and humane approach in which the government should be addressing the concerns of the migrant laborers, while also considering the public health implications.
  6. The Court’s rationale emphasized the responsibility of the state to ensure the welfare and dignified treatment of its citizens, even in times of crisis.

In essence, the Supreme Court’s rationale aimed striking a balance between the competing interests of public health and the welfare of the migrant laborers.

DEFECTS & STATEMENT
  1. Lack of comprehensive data and planning:

The case highlights the ad-hoc response of the government in addressing the plight of migrant laborers, suggesting a lack of comprehensive data, planning, and preparedness to deal with such a large-scale humanitarian crisis.

  1. Ineffective coordination between the Centre and States:

The case points to the lack of effective coordination between the Central government and the state governments in addressing the issues faced by the migrant workers, leading to conflicting policies and responses.

  1. Inadequate legal and administrative framework:

The case suggests that the existing legal and administrative frameworks were not adequately equipped to handle the sudden and massive displacement of migrant workers during the lockdown, highlighting the need for more robust and flexible systems.

  1. Insufficient focus on long-term solutions:

The case seems to primarily address the immediate concerns of migrant workers, but may not have delved deeply into the need for long-term solutions, to address the underlying structural issues that contribute to the vulnerability of migrant laborers.

  1. Potential gaps in the implementation of relief measures:

While the government reported various relief measures, the continued plight of the migrant workers suggests potential gaps in the implementation and effectiveness of these measures on the ground.

  1. Lack of voice and representation of migrant workers:

The case highlights the need for greater representation and agency of the migrant workers themselves in the decision-making processes that affect their lives and livelihoods.

Overall, the case points to the need for a more comprehensive, coordinated, and long-term approach to addressing the challenges faced by migrant laborers, with a focus on improving the legal, administrative, and social safety net frameworks.

INFERENCE

In summary, this case serves as a critical reminder of the vulnerabilities faced by marginalized and underserved communities, and the need for a more inclusive, responsive, and resilient system to protect the rights and welfare of all citizens, especially during times of crisis.

In my view, the case purely highlights the extreme vulnerability of migrant laborers, who were left without any means of livelihood or support during the nationwide lockdown, forcing them to undertake arduous journeys back to their home villages. There is a clear lack of preparedness and coordination, both at the central and state levels, which was not adequately prepared to handle the large-scale displacement of migrant workers and lacked effective coordination in responding to their immediate needs also it underscores the gaps in the existing social protection mechanisms and safety nets that failed to provide timely and adequate support for migrant laborers during the crisis. This case highlights the challenge of balancing public health concerns, such as preventing the spread of COVID-19, with the immediate humanitarian needs of migrant workers, and the need for a more nuanced and inclusive approach. It also points out that there is a need for greater representation and agency of the migrant workers themselves in the decision-making processes that affect their lives and livelihoods, additionally, in showcasing the plight of migrant laborers during the lockdown which was rooted in deeper, systemic issues, such as the lack of social security, limited access to healthcare, and inadequate urban planning, which need to be addressed more comprehensively are being highlighted in the case more elaborately.

REFERENCES
  1. Global Freedom of Expression Columbia University, “Alok Srivastava v. India”

(Global Freedom of Expression, April 14, 2020)

<https://globalfreedomofexpression.columbia.edu/cases/alok-srivastava-v-india/> accessed July 28, 2024

  1. https://indiankanoon.org/doc/129422211/ and indiankanoon.com, “Supreme Court

– Daily Orders” (Cite Them Right online – OSCOLA, March 31, 2020)

<https://indiankanoon.org/doc/129422211/> accessed July 20, 2024

  1. Journal of Applied School Psychology and Shashikala Gurpur, “Journal of Applied School Psychology” (2022) 6(3) Cite Them Right online – OSCOLA 1
Name- Shreya Gupta 
College Name- THE ICFAI UNIVERSITY DEHRADUN