New Delhi: The Delhi high court has quashed an FIR (first information report) registered against a man who had returned to India on February 5, 2020, when there were no orders in force for mandatory institutional or home quarantine for COVID-19. Even though those guidelines were issued only on March 24, 2020, the police and prosecution had accused him of violating norms.Hearing the matter, a single judge bench of Justice Mukta Gupta held that guidelines do not apply retrospectively and hence the charges against the accused do not hold any merit. Nevertheless, the case highlighted the highhandedness of the health department officials and Delhi police, who zealously filed cases against people for COVID-19 protocol violation when the pandemic had just started spreading in India in early 2020.Incidentally, the case against Sarmad Ahmad, who had returned from France, was filed on April 7, 2020 nearly two months after his return – at a time media in India was highlighting alleged COVID-protocol violations by religious congregation organised by the Tablighi Jamaat at Nizamuddin Markaz in New Delhi in mid-March 2020.Passing the order, the judge said the court was “of the considered view that the very genesis of the prosecution case against the petitioner is faulted”, adding that “an altogether new case is now being made out in the status report which is contrary to the charge sheet”.‘Guidelines can’t be applied retrospectively’Justice Gupta said, “Besides the conflicting stands in the charge-sheet and the status report, the fact that once the guidelines issued on March 24, 2020 were applicable for people entering India on or after February 15, 2020, the same could not have been given further retrospective operation for the petitioner who had arrived in the country on February 5, 2020. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be subjected to the prosecution for the offences as mentioned above.”Therefore, the judge held that FIR No.102/2020 under Section 188 (disobedience to an order lawfully promulgated by a public servant) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 3 (any person disobeying any regulation or order made under this Act shall be deemed to have committed an offence punishable) of the Epidemic Disease Act, 1897 registered at Madhu Vihar police station in East District of New Delhi against the accused and proceedings related to it “are quashed”.In the matter, Ahmad was represented by advocates M.R. Shamshad, Arijit Sarkar and Nabeela Jamal. He had filed the case against the Delhi government and others for the quashing of the charge sheet, dated April 2, 2021, filed in connection with the FIR.Justice Gupta recorded in the order that the “grievance of the petitioner in the present petition is to the invocation of the quarantine order retrospectively and on the basis of an alleged violation based on the phone call detail of the petitioner, the above noted FIR stood registered and a charge-sheet filed”.‘Hate campaign based on COVID guidelines’ Reacting to the development, senior advocate M.R. Shamshad told The Wire that the case had raised two pertinent issues.“Firstly, this case exposes that the very first Covid lockdown guidelines were legally defective and incorrect. Second, they were rampantly misused by the police system throughout the country, especially against the Tablighis and others, to run a hate campaign of the worst kind.”Also read: It’s Essential to Sift Through Hate-Driven Misinformation on CoronavirusHe added that “given the judgments in those cases, criminal prosecution should take place against all those who registered cases against acquitted Tablighis”. Also, Shamshad asked, “Why Markaz is still closed. Who is accountable? Where is the accountability in our system?”COVID norms in IndiaThe order also referred to how Ahmad had left India for France on October 19, 2019, and returned to India on February 5, 2020. It said when he returned “no orders directing mandatory institutional/home quarantine were in force”.It added that it was on January 30, 2020, that World Health Organisation declared Covid-19 as a public health emergency. Much later, on March 12, 2020, the Government of India issued guidelines asking people to follow the mandatory quarantine norm of 15 days for those who had travelled to and from China, Italy, Iran, the Republic of Korea, France, Spain and Germany.In the case of Sarmad, the petition had stated that on March 14, 2020, a person claiming to be from the health department visited his residential premises and asked about his travel plans. Ahmad provided the details and also stated that he had no symptoms of Covid-19. Yet, on April 7, 2020, an FIR was registered against the petitioner under Section 188 (disobedience to an order lawfully promulgated by a public servant) of the IPC and Section 3 (any person disobeying any regulation or order made under this Act shall be deemed to have committed an offence punishable) of the Epidemic Disease Act, 1897.‘Petitioner violated COVID norms’It was alleged in the FIR that Ahmad was directed to quarantine himself at home from March 16, 2020 to March 30, 2020. To track the movement of the petitioner, the call details of his mobile phone were collected and it was noticed that on 19, 20, 23 March 2020 and many other times, he allegedly violated home quarantine norms, visiting various places without informing the competent authority, thereby endangering the life of the general public.It was after nearly eight months, on December 4, 2020, that the petitioner came to know about the registration of the FIR against him. Then on March 25, 2021, the petitioner was served a notice under Section 41A (notice of appearance before police officer) of CrPC (Criminal Procedure Code), ordering him to appear at Madhu Vihar police station on March 27, 2021. Then on July 2, 2021 summons were issued to the petitioner, and five days later he got a call from the police station asking him to collect the summons. After this, Ahmad filed the petition.Justice Gupta recorded that the guidelines were issued by the ministry of home affairs on March 24, 2020, which read as follows:“All persons who have arrived into India after 15.02.2020, and all such persons who have been directed by health care personnel to remain under strict home/institutional quarantine for a period as decided by local Health Authorities, failing which they will be liable to legal action under Sec. 188 of the IPC.”As such, the judge said, the issue was if they were applicable in the case of the petitioner, who had returned to India on February 5, 2020. Stating that “a restriction cannot be imposed retrospectively”, the judge observed that guidelines were made applicable from February 15, 2020, and hence the charges against the accused do not hold.