Relief for 70: Delhi High Court Narrows Scope of COVID-19 Lockdown Violations in Tablighi Jamaat Cases

Download IPFS

The Delhi High Court has taken a significant step in addressing cases stemming from the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic, quashing First Information Reports (FIRs) and chargesheets against 70 Indian nationals. These individuals were accused of providing shelter to attendees of the Tablighi Jamaat congregation in March 2020, during the initial nationwide lockdown.

The ruling, delivered by Justice Neena Bansal Krishna on Thursday, July 17, brings a measure of relief to those who faced legal proceedings under various sections of the Indian Penal Code, the Epidemic Diseases Act, the Disaster Management Act, and the Foreigners Act. The court specifically stated, “Chargesheets quashed,” effectively dismissing the 16 cases registered against the 70 individuals. A detailed judgment order is currently awaited.

The controversy dates back to March 2020, when a large congregation of Tablighi Jamaat members, including foreign nationals, was held at the Markaz (center) in Nizamuddin, Delhi. This event became a focal point of public discourse regarding the spread of COVID-19 in India, leading to widespread criticism and numerous legal cases against both foreign attendees and their local hosts.

Delhi Police had opposed the petitions seeking to quash the charges, arguing that the Indian nationals had not only violated prohibitory orders issued by the Delhi government but also contributed to the spread of the virus. They alleged that the accused knowingly admitted and hosted the Jamaat assembly on their premises despite movement restrictions. However, petitioners, represented by Advocate Ashima Mandla, argued that the prohibitory orders specifically barred religious congregations, not the provision of shelter. They contended that the individuals simply offered accommodation to those who were stranded due to the sudden imposition of the nationwide lockdown.

During earlier hearings, the court had reportedly questioned the police on where individuals, particularly foreign nationals, were expected to go when a sudden lockdown was imposed across the country. This line of questioning suggested the court’s consideration of the practical realities faced by those caught unawares by the rapid imposition of travel restrictions.

The quashing of these cases aligns with similar judgments in other courts, which have often questioned the evidence presented by authorities against foreign Tablighi Jamaat members and their hosts. Many foreign nationals involved in similar cases either pleaded guilty to facilitate their return to their home countries or were subsequently discharged or acquitted. This latest decision by the Delhi High Court further clarifies the legal stance on the matter, emphasizing the need for concrete evidence to prove direct violations rather than broad accusations of harboring individuals during an unprecedented public health crisis.