[Inter-State Travel] Restrictions Necessary To Contain The Pandemic: Karnataka Govt Submits Before Kerala High Court

The Karnataka government has filed a counter affidavit before the Kerala High Court, defending its decision requiring production of negative RT-PCR certificates not older than 72 hours from people entering Karnataka from Kerala, irrespective of their vaccination status.

It has claimed that this inter-state travel restriction is to "protect the fundamental right to life and health of not only persons living in Karnataka but also those in Kerala since rigorous testing is one of the most effective methods to fight the pandemic."

The affidavit also challenges the maintainability of the petition, seeking relaxation of inter-state movement, in Kerala.

The development comes in a plea seeking reopening of borders connecting the State of Karnataka with Kerala for passengers possessing Covid-vaccination certificate for at least one dose. 

According to the petitioner, the impugned condition is a violation of the fundamental rights of people in Kerala, and he thus sought that a writ of mandamus be issued to the respondents to permit people to cross the border without insisting on production of RT-PCR certificate.

Maintainability 

The counter-affidavit challenged the maintainability of the petition since no cause of action arises within the limits of the territorial jurisdiction of the Court.

Relying on Article 226, the Karnataka Government submitted that the power to issue writs to authorities beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court is circumscribed by the requirement that the cause of action must wholly or in part arise within the territorial limits of the Court's jurisdiction.

To support this argument, they cited the precedence laid down to this effect in the Apex Court decision in Nawal Kishore Sharma v. Union of India (2014) 9 SCC 329. 

The counter-affidavit pointed out that condition of negative RT-PCR report was laid down by the State of Karnataka and the Deputy Commissioner of Dakshina Kannada District.  "It cannot get gainsaid that the said respondents fall within the territorial limits of the Karnataka State and therefore fall outside the limits of this Court's territorial jurisdiction."  

Since no part of the cause of action arises in the State of Kerala, they alleged that the petition was not maintainable, and liable to be dismissed. 

Reasonable Restrictions

The respondents also submitted that the contentions raised by the petitioner are baseless and without merit.

Karnataka has been gravely affected by the pandemic, particularly by the second wave that hit the State severely in the summer of 2021. At one point in time, the State had the most active cases in the entire nation. 

However, with new measures adopted by the Government, the State has been witnessing a steady decline in Covid-19 cases. 

It was submitted that this decrease in the number of cases since the peak of the second wave in May 2021 was on account of the coordinated and concerted efforts of the State authorities, who have been working tirelessly to ensure that new infections are effectively contained. 

On the other hand, it has been noticed that Kerala has seen an alarming increase in the number of daily Covid-19 cases registered. As per reports, the number of active cases in Kerala is 9 times higher than that in Karnataka. 

It was considering this vastly high number of cases and the fact that the States share an extensive border that the Karnataka State Covid-19 Technical Advisory Committee recommended that a negative RT-PCR test report must be insisted on. 

This was to be insisted irrespective of the vaccination status of the individual for the reason that vaccination does not prevent infection. The same was required from asymptomatic persons as well. 

This requirement was made strict for entry from the two States of Kerala and Maharashtra in light of the magnitude of the active cases in these States. This requirement was to be reviewed after the situation improves. 

As such, it was argued that these requirements were merely a temporary measure to contain the pandemic and that given the circumstances, they were absolutely necessary.  

Moreover, it was added that the Test Positivity Rate in the districts bordering Kerala was much higher than the State's average. The respondents attempted to make an implication that this could possibly be because of the influx of persons from Kerala where the TPR is higher. 

It was after considering all these deliberations and careful application of mind that the impugned Circular was published. 

Accordingly, important and necessary directions were issued by Karnataka Government to screen all arrivals from Kerala before crossing the borders, which are mandatory to be followed.  

It was submitted that pertinently, the State had not closed the border, nor is it denying entry to Karnataka as alleged by the petitioner. Rather, all that was required was the production of a negative RT PCR certificate. 

It was reiterated that no restrictions whatsoever were placed on interstate movement of goods or persons and that the borders were open for ingress and egress of persons as long as they possess a negative RT PCR certificate. 

The condition of 72 hours was further relaxed for people who had to cross the border regularly; for them producing a negative report not older than 15 days.

Exemptions were also given to children below the age of 2 years, health care professionals and even passengers travelling for grave emergency situations.

On these grounds, the Karnataka government argued that they had considered the interests of people from Kerala before issuing the impugned circular. 

Therefore, the petitioners could not assail the only requirement put on interstate travel between Kerala and Karnataka as unreasonable or violative of any fundamental rights. 

 Accordingly, they prayed that the petition be dismissed 

Case Title: Jayananda K.R v. Union of India & Ors