Applications for the LAMP Fellowship 2025-26 will open on December 1, 2024. Sign up here to be notified. Last date for submitting the applications is December 21, 2024.
On March 19, Gujarat reported its first two cases of COVID-19. Since then, the number of cases have risen steadily. As of May 2, Gujarat has 4,721 confirmed cases (second highest in the country, after Maharashtra) of COVID-19. Of this 3,750 are active cases and 236 have died. The state government has responded with various actions to contain the spread and impact of COVID-19. In this blog, we look at the key measures taken by the Gujarat Government till May 1, 2020.
Initial phase
As COVID-19 cases were rising in other parts of the country, the Gujarat government notified the Gujarat Epidemic Diseases, COVID-19 Regulations, 2020 on March 14,. These regulations detail the responsibilities of hospitals and individuals, and the powers of officials with regards to COVID-19. These include: (i) flu corners in all hospitals for screening purposes, (ii) mandatory collection of travel history of people during screenings in all hospitals, (iii) mandating people with travel history to COVID-affected countries to be isolated /quarantined based on symptoms, (iv) forced detention and isolation of suspected patients who refuse voluntary isolation, and (v) containment measures in an area once positive cases are detected. Some of the other early measures are summarised below:
Health measures
The COVID-19 regulations were immediately supplemented with the n-COVID-19 Guidelines. These guidelines cover: (i) case definitions, (ii) basic infection prevention control measures, and (iii) standard precautions to be followed during the care and treatment of suspected patients.
On March 15, the government instructed all higher education institutions and other educational institutions including schools, polytechnics, anganwadis, to shut down till March 29. However, examinations of class X, XII, and universities were permitted to continue. Further, spitting in public was made a punishable offence.
On March 19, the government ordered the closure of gyms, amusement parks, wedding halls, till March 31. Additionally, all private doctors, practising modern as well as traditional systems of medicine, were instructed to report suspect cases to the government.
A Fever Helpline 104 was launched on March 20 for reporting of suspect cases of COVID-19. Further, guidelines were also issued on the reporting of cases of Severe Acute Respiratory Illnesses (SARI) to the government. These include: (i) preparation of travel history and contact lists of reported suspect cases, (ii) nodal officer to decide on steps and treatment protocol for such cases, (iii) relevant authorities to initiate follow up and contact tracing for the patient for last 14 days, and (iv) initiating cluster management guidelines when new cases emerge.
Essential goods and services
On March 20, a committee was formed by the government for daily monitoring of the availability, supplies, and manufacturing of medicines, masks, and sanitisers. On March 21, a Khas Kharid Committee was set up to ensure procurement of necessary medicines, equipments, and human resources during emergencies, bypassing existing purchase guidelines, if necessary.
Between March 21 and March 22, the government announced a partial lockdown and released a list of essential services and businesses that were allowed to operate till March 25 in the cities of Ahmedabad, Surat, Vadodara,Rajkot, Kutch and Gandhinagar. These include: (i) government and municipal departments, (ii) shops selling essential goods, (iii) various medical facilities such as hospitals, clinics, and pharmacies, (iv) public utilities, (v) railways and transportation facilities, (vi) media, telecom, IT services, and (vii) banks and insurance firms.
The government also invited NGOs to collaborate in the fight against COVID-19, by arranging for the supply of masks, sanitisers, and infrared thermometers, and running awareness campaigns.
Administrative measures
On March 18, the government issued guidelines specifying preventive measures to be taken in all government offices and employees. Recommendations inlcude: (i) avoiding face-to-face meetings and non-essential travel, (ii) closure of gyms and yoga centres in the Secretariat, (iii) home quarantine for officials exhibiting any symptoms, and (iv) mandatory leave to be given to such persons going on quarantine.
On March 21, the government released the terms of reference of Regional Nodal Officers appointed to work towards preventing the spread of COVID-19.
On March 23, the Gujarat Legislative Assembly decided to indefinitely postpone the Rajya Sabha elections that were originally to be held on March 26.
Other measures
An advisory was issued requesting private firms to not lay off workers (even if they fall sick to COVID-19) or reduce their salaries.
During the lockdown
On March 23, the state government extended and expanded the partial lockdown announced in select cities to the entire state. The lockdown was to be in place from March 23 to March 31. In addition to the exemptions announced in the partial lockdown orders, services such as (i) cattle feeding and veterinary services, (ii) stock broking, (iii) postal and courier services, and (iv) operation of industries where workers are available on site, were permitted. The state-wide lockdown has been followed by a nation-wide lockdown since March 25 . This has been further extended until May 17. Some of the key measures undertaken during the lockdown period are:
Health measures
On March 27, all private clinics and hospitals in the state were directed to utilise the Dr. TeCHO mobile app developed by the government. The app can be used for uploading information related to: (i) sample collection and (ii) reporting and surveillance of all SARI cases. Another app was launched to keep track of home quarantined people.
On March 30, COVID-19 was included as a notified disaster under the State Disaster Response Fund (SDRF). Thus, all expenditure related to relief measures for displaced / homeless people, migrant labour or other stranded persons due to the lockdown, will be made out of the SDRF.
On March 31, the government released new guidelines for the clinical management of COVID-19. These cover: (i) triage activities, (ii) case definitions and classification, (iii) infection and prevention control measures, (iii) specimen collection and handling, (iv) management and prevention of medical complications, (v) clinical management for COVID-19, (vi) discharge policy for patients, and (vii) dead body management.
To exclusively cater to COVID-19 cases, four government hospitals and three private hospitals were declared as designated COVID-19 treatment facilities. Further, the government instructed all COVID-19 hospitals to provide treatment to the people free of cost. On May 1, 26 hospitals were additionally designated as COVID-19 facilities.
Resource Management: Between March 31 and April 7, the government initiated multiple measures to address the shortage of medical practitioners in government hospitals. These include: (i) extending tenures of retiring medical personnel, (ii) ad-hoc recruitment of teachers in medical colleges, (iii) contract-based appointments of class-1 specialist and class-2 medical officers from private sector, (iv) additional responsibilities to select class-1 doctors from the epidemiologist department, and (v) temporary shifting of Ayurvedic medical officers to various locations.
On March 28, the state released guidelines for Human Resource management (HRM) in COVID-19 facilities. These include: (i) creation of district level task forces, (ii) patient flow algorithm, (iii) deployment and rotation of HR, including residents and nursing staff, and (iv) pooling of HR from various institutes and cadres.
The state has also allowed the use of AYUSH remedies and medicines, particularly for persons quarantined through contact tracing and to frontline personnel. Teams of corona warriors have been formed to assist people with preventive care. In addition, local officials have been asked to utilise the services of important stakeholders such as teachers, priests, and others, who can influence the social behaviour of people to deal with COVID-19.
A new State Health System Resource Centre has been established as the nodal agency in the state for all COVID-19 related research. Further, a COVID-19 research activity committee has been set up to lead this endeavour.
Welfare measures
On March 25, the state government decided to provide ration to 60 lakh poor families who live on daily wages. Further, on March 28, to minimise the adverse effects of lockdown on casual labour, autorickshaw drivers, and street vendors, the government announced free wheat, rice, pulses, sugar, and iodised salt for the month of April 2020.
A Vadil Vandana scheme was launched to provide free of cost meals to the elderly and the aged living alone in various cities of the state.
The state also announced that electricity bills from March 1 to April 30, can be paid by May 15.
The government announced compensatory packages worth Rs 25 lakh for each frontline worker who may lose life on COVID-19 duty. Such workers include: (i) police personnel and (ii) other government employees under the state government, panchayats, and nagar palikas .
Other measures
Industry: Relaxations from the lockdown were announced for factories and IT/ITES firms, from April 20 onwards. For factories, the conditions specified that adult workers shall be allowed to work for not more than 12 hours per day (six hours at a time) or 72 hours per week. Female workers are not allowed to work between 7 pm and 6 am. Wages are to be proportional to the existing wage structure. IT/ITES firms are allowed operate in non-containment zones at 50% strength and social distancing norms will be required to be followed.
Administrative: On March 30, the government issued an order to continue paying full wages to all fixed-pay government employees who are on leave or working from home during the lockdown. However, the employees are required to report to work whenever required by the government during the lockdown.
On April 15, nodal officers were appointed and given additional financial powers to take control of infectious disease control hospitals.
For more information on the spread of COVID-19 and the central and state government response to the pandemic, please see here.
Yesterday, the Supreme Court delivered its first verdict in a series of legal challenges that have been made against the Aadhaar project.[1] In the present matter, the court was examining whether a provision of the Finance Act, 2017 that made Aadhaar mandatory for filing of income tax returns and applying for Permanent Account Number (PAN) cards was constitutionally valid. The court has upheld the validity of this provision, subject to a few qualifications. Below, we discuss the background of the Aadhaar project, why the courts have stepped in to examine its legality, and some aspects of the recent judgement.
What is Aadhaar about, and how is it being used?
Earlier, various identity proofs were required for access to governments benefits, subsidies and services, such as a ration card, driving license or voter id. However, as these proofs could be easily duplicated or forged, there was leakage of benefits and subsidies to ineligible beneficiaries. The Aadhaar project was initiated in 2009 to address these problems. It was envisaged as a biometric-based unique identity number that could help identify eligible persons. It was thought to be a more reliable identity proof, because it sought to authenticate a person’s identity based on their unique biometrics, like fingerprints and iris scans.1
In 2016, Parliament enacted the Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Act, 2016 to provide legislative backing to the project. This Act allowed Aadhaar to be used for authentication purposes by the central and state government, as well as by private bodies and persons.[2]
Under its provisions, government has been issuing various notifications making Aadhaar mandatory for government projects, such as LPG subsidies and Mid-Day Meal scheme.[3] In addition, in 2017, Parliament passed the Finance Act to amend the Income Tax Act, 1961, and made Aadhaar mandatory for filing of income tax returns, and applying for PAN.[4]
What is the information collected under Aadhaar?
To obtain an Aadhaar number, a person is required to submit their : (i) biometric information (photograph, 10 fingerprints, scans of both irises), and (ii) demographic information (name, date of birth, gender, residential address) to the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI).[5] The Aadhaar number, the demographic and biometric information (called identity information) is together stored in the Central Identities Data Repository. In addition, every time a person’s identity is authenticated using Aadhaar, information related to the authentication request is recorded as well.
How is this information protected?
While India does not have a comprehensive law on privacy and data security, the Aadhaar Act, 2016 has some protections. For example, it prohibits UIDAI and its officers from sharing a person’s identity information and authentication records with anyone. It also forbids a person authenticating another person’s identity from collecting or using their information without their consent. Other protections include prohibitions against publicly displaying a person’s Aadhaar number and sharing of a person’s fingerprints and iris scans with anyone. Note that there are penalties prescribed for violation of these provisions as well.[6]
However, the Act permits information be disclosed in the interest of national security and on the order of a court.[7]
The UIDAI authority has been made responsible for the operation and maintenance of the Aadhaar database, and for laying down the security protocols for its protection.[8]
Why did the courts step in?
Even as Aadhaar is being rolled out, with about 111 crore of the 125 crore population already on the database, there are several important constitutional and legal questions around the unique identity project.[9][10] While yesterday’s judgement addresses one of these issues, other questions remain unresolved. A description of the key legal questions is provided below.
Privacy: It has been argued that the collection of identity data without adequate safeguards interferes with the fundamental right to privacy protected under Article 21 of the Constitution. Article 21 guarantees right to life and personal liberty. In August 2015, a three judge bench of the Supreme Court passed an order stating that a larger bench must be formed to decide the questions of: (i) whether right to privacy is a fundamental right, and (ii) whether Aadhaar violates this right.[11] However, the court has not set up a larger bench to hear these petitions till June 2017.[12]
Mandatory vs voluntary: Another question before the court is whether Aadhaar can be made mandatory for those government benefits and services, that citizens are entitled to under law. In 2015, the Supreme Court passed some interim orders stating that: (i) Aadhaar cannot be made mandatory for providing citizens with benefits and entitlements, and (ii) it can only be used for seven schemes including PDS distribution of foodgrains and kerosene, LPG distribution scheme, MGNREGA wage payments, and Prime Minister’s Jan Dhan Yojana.11
Subsequently, Parliament enacted the Aadhaar Act, 2016, and the government has been issuing notifications under it to make Aadhaar mandatory for various schemes.3 In light of this, more petitions have been filed challenging these notifications.[13] Judgements on these petitions are awaited as well.
Linking Aadhaar with PAN: In 2017, after Parliament made Aadhaar mandatory for filing of tax returns and applying for PAN under the Income Tax Act, 1961, fresh petitions were filed in the Supreme Court. The new provision stated that if a person failed to link their PAN with the Aadhaar number by a date notified by the central government, their PAN will be invalidated. The government said this will decrease the problem of multiple PAN cards obtained under fictitious names and consequent tax fraud and tax evasion, because Aadhaar will ensure proper identification.1,[14] However, the petitioners argued that this may interfere with a person’s fundamental rights, such as their right to practice any profession, trade or business and right to equality. It is this question that has been addressed in the new judgement.1
Money Bill: The fourth question is related to the manner in which the Aadhaar Act, 2016 was passed by Parliament. The Act was passed as a Money Bill. A Money Bill only needs to be passed by Lok Sabha, while Rajya Sabha may make non-binding recommendations on it. In case of the Aadhaar Act, Rajya Sabha made some recommendations that were rejected by Lok Sabha. It has been argued before the courts that the Aadhaar Act does not qualify as a Money Bill because it contains provisions unrelated to government taxation and expenditure.13,[15]
What has the judgement held?
The Supreme Court has held that the new provision of the Income Tax Act that makes Aadhaar mandatory for income tax assessees is not in violation of the fundamental right to equality, or the fundamental right to practice one’s profession or trade. The petitioners had argued that the new provision discriminates between individual and non-individual assessees (e.g. companies or firms), because it only seeks to address tax fraud by individuals. They had also contended that Aadhaar could not address the problem of tax fraud through duplicate PANs because there was evidence to show that people had multiple Aadhaar numbers as well. The court rejected these arguments (as well as arguments related to freedom to carry on business), stating that Aadhaar is perceived as the best method of eliminating duplicate PANs, and therefore there is reasonable rationale behind linking the PAN database with Aadhaar.1
The court decided not to examine questions related to human dignity and privacy, on the ground that issues affecting Article 21 will be examined by a larger bench to be set up by the court. However, it granted relief to people, who have not enrolled for Aadhaar, by stating that their PAN cards cannot be invalidated till the time when the matter is finally decided by such a bench.
This, in effect, means that the debate around constitutionality and legality of the Aadhaar project will remain ongoing till a judgement is finally pronounced on whether Aadhaar is in violation of right to privacy under Article 21.
[1] Binoy Viswam vs Union of India, Supreme Court, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 247 of 2017, http://www.sci.gov.in/pdf/jud/wc24717_Sign.pdf.
[2] Sections 7, 8 and 57, Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Act, 2016.
[3] Unstarred Question No. 4126, Lok Sabha, March 27, 2017; Unstarred Question No. 1209, Lok Sabha, February 9, 2017; S.O. 371 (E), Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution, February 8, 2017, http://dfpd.nic.in/writereaddata/Portal/Magazine/Document/1_211_1_aadhaar-notification.pdf; S.O. 369 (E), Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare, February 8, 2017, http://www.egazette.nic.in/WriteReadData/2017/174076.pdf.
[4] The Finance Bill, 2017, http://www.prsindia.org/billtrack/the-finance-bill-2017-4681/.
[5] Regulations 3 and 4, Aadhaar (Enrolment and Update) Regulations, 2016.
[6] Sections 28-47, Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Act, 2016.
[7] Section 33, Section 23, Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Act, 2016.
[8] Section 23, Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Act, 2016.
[9] “UIDAI achieves 111 crore mark on Aadhaar generation; Unique identity covers over 99 percent adult residents of India”, Press Information Bureau, January 27, 2017.
[10] Justice K. Puttaswamy (Retd) and Another vs Union of India and Others, Supreme Court, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 494 of 2012; Jairam Ramesh vs Union of India, Writ Petition (Civil) 231 of 2016; S.G. Vombatkere and Another vs Union of India and Others, Supreme Court, Writ Petition (Civil) 797/ 2016; “Aadhaar: What are the pending cases before the Supreme Court”, Indian Express, May 31, 2017, http://indianexpress.com/article/india/aadhaar-what-are-the-pending-cases-before-the-supreme-court/.
[11] Justice K. Puttaswamy (Retd) and Another vs Union of India and Others, Supreme Court, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 494 of 2012, September 23, 2013, August 11, 2015, October 15, 2015.
[12] “The Aadhaar/ PAN Judgement”, Indian Constitutional Law and Philosophy Blog, https://indconlawphil.wordpress.com/2017/06/09/the-aadhaarpan-judgment/.
[13] “Aadhaar: What are the pending cases before the Supreme Court”, Indian Express, May 31, 2017, http://indianexpress.com/article/india/aadhaar-what-are-the-pending-cases-before-the-supreme-court/.
[14] Uncorrected Lok Sabha Debates, March 22, 2017, Pg. 240, http://164.100.47.193/newdebate/16/11/22032017/Fullday.pdf.
