 All right. Good morning, everyone. We will be starting our session shortly. It's about 11.16 AM, and we have at present nine participants. So let's wait for a few more minutes before we start this session webinar. And at the same time, a quick reminder to all of you to kindly keep your microphones on mute for the duration of the talk. And also, please remember that a Q&A session will be held at the end of the session. So you can feel free to type your questions in the chat window, and we will be picking them up later on. At the same time, you can also switch on your captions, in case the audio zones zones out. The captions will help you keep track of what is being spoken during this webinar. So we'll just wait for a few more minutes before we start the session off. We now have about nine participants. All right. It's 11.20 AM. And I think we will begin the session now as we wait for more people to join in. I assume that they will join in. I think the MF students are finishing up their classes, and they should be here at any minute. But we will honor time. We will start as per our schedule. So to begin with, let me introduce myself. I'm Anjan Bhaira, the assistant dean of the college. And you are welcome to the talk session, being organized today. This is a session which aims at bringing intellectual thinkers from different walks of life and helping them interact with our college students, faculty, staff, and also individuals who are in the state, in Nagaland and beyond. And today we have a very interesting topic that we wish to discuss on and ponder on the legal implications of COVID-19. Basically, what has happened is with the commencement of the lockdown and the commencement of this whole period of uncertainty that India and the world has been pushed towards. It has become unpredictable, life has become unpredictable, as we try to make sense of things that are going on. Now amidst this pandemonium of great confusion lies a constant. And the constant is the law. The law binds the country together. The law keeps the systems running in place. And the law ensures that everything is running right. But at times like this, it's also left very ambiguous. Law is left ambiguous as to the extent to which the law applies. And what of these fundamental rights that were earlier in place for the citizens are now are still in place? Do we still have those rights or not? And apart from that, a lot of other issues also come into play. For example, the public, the way in which the public has been taking the law into their own hands. Some argue that it is for the greater good of the society, yet others argue that by taking the law into their own hand, they are breaking the law. And what is most interesting is that as far as my knowledge goes, that the terms of the lockdown and curfew, what laws are available, what these restrictions are in place during these times are not clearly mentioned in the Constitution either. So we are at the midst of a time where law is being created and shaped as we speak. Because lockdown is not something that is defined by the Constitution as far as my reading goes. The State Disaster Management Act definitely has provisions for complete shutdown. However, the terms are not clearly defined in black and white. And today, addressing those issues, we have Dr. Anuradha Babar from the Department of Political Science, that's so college. And he is someone who is always enthusiastic about organizing such talks and sharing his views and ideas with the world. He is a non-practicing lawyer who is the founder member of the People's Law Center at Mumbai. And he is a researcher as well, independently working towards various kinds of studies. At the same time, he defines himself as a poet by heart, a philosopher by nature, and an adventurer by soul. His areas of interest include constitutional law, tribal studies, Southeast Asian studies, applied politics, gender studies, peace and conflict studies, and most importantly, human rights. And so he is going to be speaking to us and sharing his ideas on this topic, the legal implications of COVID-19. So without taking much time, I now hand over the time to our guest speaker. Others, please note, in the interest of keeping down the background noise, kindly keep your microphones on mute. You can use the chat window to type your questions, which will be picked up in the Q&A session at the end of this talk. So I now hand over the time to our guest speaker. Dr. Anuradha Babar, please take over your time. Thank you. Thank you so much, sir. Good morning, all of you. Good morning. Most important thing at the outset, I would like to share my sincere gratitude for allowing me this platform to share my thoughts and ideas. World is changing. We are undergoing a strange kind of transformation. Our lifestyle had changed. The way we perceived reality has also changed. COVID-19 has changed our perspective towards the nature, towards our life, and towards our entire world. This has been a much-awaited opportunity for me, because I have been observing, even in the media, that the legal implications of COVID-19 has not much been talked about. Because as Mr. Teen has rightly mentioned, that our entire life has been governed by law. The moment you are born, till your last breath, everything is governed by the law. Everything is governed by the system. Now, what law is that applicable to this new life of lockdown? Where are we following those laws? What is the root of those laws? And the most important thing, that whether are we aware about this system, which is somehow influencing our life on day-to-day basis during this lockdown? I am allotted 20 odd minutes, and I will try my level best to share my thoughts, share my ideas with all of you. Questions are always welcome. OK, so as we all are aware, that coronavirus disease 2019 is an infectious disease caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome, that is coronavirus 2, which is also scientifically known as SARCOV2. This disease has been first identified in December 2009 in one of the provinces of China called Wuhan, which is also a capital of China's Hubei region. At present, more than 3 million people have been infected worldwide around 197,000 people have died. This is what the official record says. And if you take a record of India, somewhat we are able to manage, but still we have more than 24,000 infections and close to 850 deaths at this point of time. So this helps us to understand, this bird's eye view is helps us to understand the trajectory of this COVID-19 pandemic. Now the question is, what strategies has been implemented all over the world and also including India to tackle this COVID-19 pandemic? Let me first clear one thing, that since last 100 years, we have never experienced this type of disease before. Of course, there were diseases, there were epidemics, swine flu we have seen, different types of SARS we have seen, and we have also seen the Middle Eastern respiratory syndrome. We have seen Ebola. But if you take a statistical record of the impact of those diseases all over the world, then you will find that the impact was contained in specific geopolitical pockets. That was not, in short, that was not an international emergency. If you compare with the impact of this COVID-19, COVID-19 is an international emergency. See, Ebola had no direct impact on Asian countries. Ebola never had any direct impact on European countries. Even the Middle Eastern respiratory syndrome did not have any impact in Indian subcontinent. So containment was there, and containment was possible while tackling those types of diseases. But when it comes to COVID-19, the major feature of COVID-19 is it's an international emergency. And to tackle this international emergency, which has created havoc all over the world, different countries have developed different strategies. But let me tell you, there is no much difference among those strategies because one country, it seems one country is learning from another country. So basically, how to tackle with this epidemic, how to tackle with this international emergency is not something that we are developing on our own, but it is something that we are learning from each other. So from my perspective, a couple of strategic responses are available at our disposal. But before moving to them, let us first understand the gravity of the pandemic. Millions of people have been infected. Thousands of people have been died. The entire world got into lockdown. And most importantly, my dear friends, there is no vaccine available as of now. There are many news cropping up that one country is developing this vaccine, that vaccine. Some countries are advancing towards animal trials, trials on human beings, so on and so forth. But at this point of time, as of now, 28th of April, 2020, we do not have any vaccine at our disposal. So that makes this threat very serious, this threat very grave. Now, in the absence of vaccine, what other responses can we level against the threat of COVID-19? Let me first tell you, all over the world, I mean, all the administration as well as the medical experts have unanimously agreed that social distancing or, say, physical distancing has been considered as one of the robust response, robust strategic response to control the spread of COVID-19. Then the total lockdown has also been implemented all over the world. What is the meaning of total lockdown? Your shops will be closed, your economic affairs will be closed, your day-to-day affairs will be closed. Basically, the complete system, the economic system, the social system will be in a complete lockdown. Then another response, which is also very important, which has been leveled against COVID-19, is emphasis on personal hygiene. How to wash your hands? You should not touch your eyes. You should not touch your nose. You have to maintain three feet of distance while talking with a person. You have to wear masks. You have to take care of your eyes, so on and so forth. Now, another question comes is, what is another important feature of the strategic responses? The other feature of strategic response is active policing. Now, it sounds very odd, because I was talking about the medical terms, like personal hygiene, this act. But suddenly, this word active policing comes. Now, let me tell you one thing very clearly. This kind of world that we are trapped in at this point of time or rather dragged in this kind of situation, we are not used to it. So my observation is that people do not know what is to be done. I mean, let me, because I have been following the trajectory of this disease since last December. When it was in China, China was not willing to share complete information. So we were in dark at this point of time. But still, whatever information was leaking out from Wuhan, made us believe that something unparalleled, which we have never experienced before in our lifetime, is happening in China. And then finally, this turned out to be true. Now, because of this, we are still in confusion that how to behave, how not to behave. So some guidelines have been issued. And it has been seen that those guidelines, those regulations, those rules, which I'm talking about during the course of my talk, they are not actually being understood by the people. I mean, this is my conclusion. I mean, if you want to take a bird's eye view, and if you want to understand that in what way the people are complying with the latest rules and regulations and the laws, then you will find that many people are not able to comply because they either ignore the rules and regulations, or they might not be aware of those rules and regulations. We are going to talk about them in detail. So active policing is also another important strategic response that India has also levered and also the other countries have also levered. Then invocation of special laws. We have invoked special kind of laws. Have you ever heard before, Epidemic Disease Act? No, I was a lawyer before becoming a professor of political science. I was a lawyer. And I personally, let me tell you, I've never heard this law before. The Epidemic Disease Act. It is a colonial legislation. We are using that. Rather, we are compelled to use this colonial legislation at this point of time. So you can understand the complexity and the gravity of this pandemic. Now, let us understand the case of India. I would like to discuss some challenges to implement those strategic responses that I have given you in a nutshell just a moment back. So let us first understand what is the first challenge that India is facing. The first challenge is a social distancing and lockdown and its public response. See, the idea of social distancing and lockdown is completely new in the context of India. It is said that Indians are argumentative people. Indians love to be with each other all the time. So basically, our social ties are very close. So the idea about social distancing, idea about lockdown, idea about living in the solitude, doing nothing, it's actually culturally very strange to India. So it is very interesting to actually understand that how Indians actually responded to social distancing in the earlier days of lockdown or lockdown policy, you may call it. So in this case, you will be surprised to know that many people got confused. For references, you can go through the news headlines. You can go through different newspapers. And then you will conclude, you will also conclude that nobody knows what's happening. The gravity of the situation was not actually comprehended by a common Indian public. But as the statistics started coming up, as information started coming up, the second thing that we have witnessed is the first is ignorance. The second is panicking. So people started getting panicked. Now what happened is that due to this panicking, again, people were not able to understand what is their duty in this unique scenario. Moreover, we have also witnessed carelessness of people. We have also witnessed that how people were started roaming on the empty streets. Basically, what the medical experts have been trying to say is that social distancing takes the end of spreading the virus. And unfortunately, at the initial stage, I believe, many people were not able to understand this entire term of breaking the chain or breaking the cycle of the virus. And collectively, because of the problems that the people's ignorance have created or people's carelessness have created, that collective problems have imposed a serious challenge upon police administration. And we have to accept that. We have to accept that. What happened at Merkur's or what happened in different parts of India? Since I have very less time in my hand, I need not go into the detail. But what does it show? What does it show? Either it shows ignorance, point number one. Either it shows complete disregard for the law of the land, number two. And number three, either it disregards complete carelessness. Now this is the problem. And in this situation, the entire police administration had to function. But what's the result? On one hand, it was very difficult to contain people. Then on the other hand, it was very difficult to control the infection graph. Then as a result, what happened? The infection graph kept on rising. The statistics is available widely on internet. If you just Google it out, you will come to know. Now, another question that this talk is all about is the legal implications of COVID-19. So far, I have given you a little bit idea about the strategic responses, the challenges that the police administration have faced so far. Now let us talk about the technical aspect of it. Now see, there are certain sections which has been invoked during this COVID-19 pandemic. I'll just introduce you to those sections. Let us start from Indian Penal Code. I'm carrying my bear act with me. So for your information, let us start with Section 88 of Indian Penal Code. So what does Section 88 of Indian Penal Code talks about? It talks about disobedience to order duly promulgated by the public servant. What does it say? Disobedience to order duly promulgated by the public servant. Now what does it mean? See, any order which is being issued by any public servant, I'm not going to give you a definition of public servant, but public servant includes civil service officers, as well as any person who is attached to perform public duties. So those orders which has been issued by any public servant and those order are being not followed properly in letter and spirit. Then there is a punishment involved in that. Punishment is one month of imprisonment or fine. And if the gravity of the offense increases, then the punishment of imprisonment can increase up to six months also. Now why I have been pointed this particular section? Because let me tell you, in this entire chaos, this section has been invoked. Because this particular section provides immunity to the civil servants as well as the police officers. Like for example, at local level, certain regulations and certain rules are also being promulgated. Certain orders have been promulgated. And if a common man is not following them, either it is being promulgated by executive magistrate or it is promulgated by a district magistrate, then that is amount to disobedience. And if a person is accused of disobedience and if subsequently he is convicted, then one month imprisonment or if the disobedience is grave in nature, then six months of imprisonment is provided in section 188 of IPC. The second section, which has been seen commonly in working in this COVID-19 scenario in India, is that that is section 269. Now this is section 269. Now listen to me very carefully. What does this section tells us? It tells us negligent act likely to spread infection of disease dangerous to life. And let me tell you, number of FIRs in Bombay, number of FIRs in Gujarat have been filed under section 269. Especially in case of the Marcus case, because of that, the hotspot has been created in Nizamuddin area of Delhi. People have been charged under section 269. Now what is section 269 talks about? Negligent act likely to spread infection of disease dangerous to life. Subsequently, section 270 has also been invoked. Section 270 speaks about malignant act likely to spread infection of disease dangerous to life. Now see, the gravity of the offenses under section 269 and under 270 is different. Under section 269, for negligent act under section 269, the punishment would be six months and five. And under section 270, any malignant act likely to spread infection, a punishment would be imprisonment of two years. Now please understand. Along with this, there is section 271 also. I think section 271 of IPC has not been promulgated as such. But still for the information of viewers, let me share with you. Section 271 provides that disobedience of quarantine rule is subject to six months imprisonment or a fine. But let us not get confused. Section 271 is only applicable to the vessels. Especially I'm talking about sea vessels. What does it says? Section 271 talks about disobedience to quarantine rule. Whoever knowingly disobeys any rule made and promulgated by the government for putting any vessel into a state of quarantine or for regulating the intercourse of vessel in a state of quarantine with the shore or with other vessel or for regulating the intercourse between places where an infectious disease prevails and other places shall be punished with the imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months or with fine. It simply talks about quarantine in the vessel, especially it talks about the sea vessel. Let me tell you the background of this section. Can somebody recall that what happened exactly 100 years ago? A similar kind of situation occurred, but the disease was different. What type of disease was that? That was Spanish flu, Spanish fever or Spanish flu or something like that. And if you take this Indian Penal Code, this Indian Penal Code was drafted in 1860. So this 271, what happened in Spanish flu is that many people were quarantined on the sea vessels. I mean, they were mostly sailors. They were not allowed to get down on the shores. And those who try to break the quarantine rule, they were subject to six months of imprisonment or fine. So this was the law that was promulgated 100 years ago at that point of time. Now, simultaneously, this is what I have spoken about, Indian Penal Code, section 188, section 269, section 270 and section 271. Let us move. Now let us move to criminal procedure code. Now, what does the criminal procedure code has to say? See, we all heard about section 144, curfew. Many people who are not well-worsened with the law, they are also now very familiar with section 144. Exo-Chavalis, they talk, as they say in Hindi. See, basically 144 talks about curfew orders. Okay. Now, curfew can be promulgated by executive magistrate or maybe district magistrate at any point of time. Now, what powers does the executive magistrate, commissionerate or district magistrate enjoy under section 144 is that any person can be arrested who is jumping curfew orders or who is flouting curfew orders, right? And let me just draw your attention to certain situations wherein this has happened in reference to latest COVID-19 situation. Can you believe it? More than 600 people have been arrested. More than 600 FIRs have been filed under section 144 of CRPC. I mean, it is beyond my understanding. And if I take a defense that, oh my God, sir, I was not aware about this curfew order. I was not aware about section 144. I was not aware about my own responsibility under section 144. Then let me tell you, law has given certain defenses, certain valid defenses to accuse, right? Ignorance is not a defense. Ignorance is not a legal defense. I mean, if I'm accused and if I go to the court and if I say that I'm sorry, my Lord, I was not aware about the law, then the judge will definitely tell you that my dear, this ignorance is not a valid defense in the eyes of law. So it is a duty of every citizen of India to familiarize himself or herself about every rule, every regulation, every law, every ordinance which is prevalent in the state. That is very important. So I really want to talk about section 144 of CRPC. Many FIRs have been filed. More over section 123. Dr. Anuradha, if I may quickly interrupt in the interest of time, I would request you to wind the session in about four to five minutes. So we can move on to the question. Thank you so much. Yes, sir. I will do that. I will do that. So after 144, we move to section 133. That talks about conditional order for removal of noisons by district magistrate, right? So 133 has also been promulgated, right? But unfortunately, what we have seen is people have flouted that also. Then as I was requested to wrap up my session within a few minutes, I'll just give you a bird's eye view. Then we have the Epidemic Disease Act. So section two, section three, and section four of Epidemic Disease Act has been promulgated. Then we moved to the Disaster Management Act under section five of Disaster Management Act. Central government have declared this COVID-19 as a national disaster. Then we have also moved to a couple of more acts that is Essential Service Management Act, right? Have you heard about it? The medical services comes under Essential Services Management Act. Then have you heard about the Essential Goods Management Act, right? The masks and all essential commodities, I apologize. It is Essential Commodities Management Act, okay? So your masks and medical equipments are all listed under Essential Commodities Management Act. Then we move to Constitution. Article 47 of the Constitution says that the state has a paramount duty for nutrition, security, and the standard of living and improvement of public health. I mean, that covers everything, you know? Why state is doing what it's supposed to do? Why lockdown? Why, you know, the medical staff is working 24 hours? You know, everything is covered under Article 47 that says that the state has a paramount duty for nutrition, security, and the standard of living and improving of public health. Then entry 29 of the Concurrent List under the Constitution empowers the central as well as state governments to legislate on the matters pertaining to the prevention of infection or contagious diseases, right? So please understand that in Nagaland, we have, you know, our own, you know, the act which has been promulgated by the state of Nagaland to tackle the menace of COVID-19, right? Which is a result of entry 29. And then entries one and six of state list talks about the governments are empowered to deal with the matters related to public health and public order. So this is the legal genesis of the acts which are prevalent at this point of time. Okay, now another question. Let me just quickly, you know, take your attention is to the privacy. Under K Puttu Swami versus Union of India, it is clearly mentioned in the Supreme Court, take down the case K Puttu Swami versus Union of India. The release of personal data has become a privacy concern and has been stated as a gross violation of the legitimate expectation of privacy. We have seen that people who have been infected or those who have been suspicious to be infected with COVID-19, their names haven't released, their photographs haven't released. Those people have been discriminated in the eyes of the people and by the people. This is absolutely not acceptable in the civilized society. This is not acceptable in the constitutional democracy, right? So Supreme Court has rightly mentioned its view that the release of personal data has become a privacy concern and has been stated as a gross violation of the legitimate expectation of a privacy, okay? Then there are some other arguments which are coming, you know, about Arup-Gir Setu app also that attracts the movement and healthy tells among other people data of the users of breach of personal data. So this is also raising privacy concerns. Only future will tell us what is it all about? Then, you know, in Nagaland, we have Nagaland Epidemic Disease Regulations Act. As I told you that Essential Service Management Act is very much present all over India. Essential Commodities Act is very much present all over India in supplement with relevant regulations under Indian Penal Code and CRPC and Disaster Management Act. Now coming to the conclusion. See, extraordinary measures are necessary to tackle extraordinary circumstances and the entire world is witnessing that, you know? But my humble submission is that let us allow ourselves to familiarize with the laws. Law of land must be respected. We are a part of a very different situation now, right? So it is not just a duty of the medical professional to protect us from the disease. It is also a duty of ourselves, right? Our duty to fight COVID-19 and also our duty to follow the rules and regulations promulgated from time to time by the state government, by the central government, you know? And let me reiterate once again that ignorance of law is neither an excuse nor a legal defense. It will never help you in case you are caught by the, or you are caught in the, you know, hands of the law enforcement agencies. Let us obey the laws. Let us fight COVID-19. The time has come to unite and fight COVID-19. Thank you. Thank you for this opportunity. Thank you so much. Thank you so much, Dr. Nirodha. It was an informative session. It was so good to actually learn about the various articles and various, you know, prospects that are, that the Indian law has for us. And what is important that I realized during your talk is that at moments like this, we citizens should actually have a first hand information of the law, then depend on the news channels and other sources to tell us what the law is. I mean, that is our, that we should be aware of our rights because I mean, we know right now news channels are primary sources of information to what extent can we actually trust them. And so at this juncture, it actually becomes very important to be familiar with these particular articles, okay, provisions that the law has for us. So thank you so much for giving us all those, all those new information. And so sorry, we have to cut you short, but that is only in the interest of time. So I leave the session open now for any questions that can be asked. I think since there's only nine of us, what I will kind of, you know, maybe ask our audiences if you have questions, please switch on your microphone and ask a question directly. Since there's just a few of us, I think we can just use that. Otherwise, if you do not have a proper sound connection, you can always use the chat window to type in your question, but otherwise, let's use the microphone and speak to each other directly for this Q&A session. So I give the time now for any questions that the audience might have. Okay, I have a question, okay. Anira, thanks so much for the session. I think this was needed and it's very helpful, you know, for everyone who's attending, I wish more could have attended, but I think this time, even though we have nine of us here, I'm sure it's educated a lot of us, all of us here. So one thing that I liked about what you said was that, you know, you mentioned that ignorance is just not an excuse, you know, for not being aware of the law or for not, you know, even being aware of your rights. Ignorance is not an excuse and I think students really need to know that, you know, so that was, that was, that's an important point, simple basic, but an important point I felt. And then what I wanted to ask basically was about, what is your opinion on this case where in Dimapur we had Raja Jain who was, right, COVID positive and we say that we, every patient has a basic right of their, you know, identity not being revealed of their case history address, but then we saw that names were splashed out, right? Identities were revealed, addresses, phone numbers and in the case of Raja Jain, I think the government itself decided that they mentioned, right? If you saw in the notification that it was necessary for his identity to be revealed in order to prevent the spread of the virus. And so what about instances like that, you know? And that's my first question. The second one is with regard to the Shilong case, we had a family, a doctor who had expired because of the COVID-19 case and his family was under quarantine in their house, whereas the government had made provisions for a quarantine facility that all affected members would have to go to the quarantine facility and quarantine there and be institutionalized. But in this case, the family I heard was not taken to the quarantine facility because Konrad had mentioned that he's giving time to the family, you know, because of the demise of the father. And so they were not taken to the quarantine facility. So my question here is like, if families would like to quarantine on their own in their own respective homes, you know, as opposed to the law or as opposed to the notification, the rule that's been given by the state government to, you know, be institutionalized, what wouldn't that can, is that an option? Can we call that as a basic human right to want to be, you know, to recuperate at home rather than an institutional quarantine? Is Dr. Ruta, you can respond. Thank you, Dr. Rewaza, thank you for your question. See, these are certain basic question that needs to be answered. Let us start with the case of Raja Jain, okay. We all know what happened to Raja Jain, how we reached to Guwahati and what's the present status of this case. However, the most important thing is the identity revelation, right? Supreme court has clearly stated with reference to right to privacy that the identity should not be released. And on the contrary, the state government by virtue of its notification has clearly stated that the identity revelation is necessary, you know, to stop spreading disease or to let the people know that who is he, right? Let me tell you one more interesting thing. This Aarugya app, okay, I was talking about that. This Aarugya app has also raised certain questions regarding the privacy, right? Like for example, your movements are recorded, you know, your health status is recorded. Where are you going? Whom are you meeting? So basically what my understanding is that in this case, in reference to specific situations, I call it a situational response, right? Now on one hand, Supreme court has clearly mentioned that your privacy is your right, okay? It has not been stated as a fundamental right, but it is your right. And your right is required to be protected by the state law, okay, in all the circumstances. But dear friends, what I understand is that we are dealing with extraordinary circumstances. See, let me tell you, Raja Jain has its one case, okay? But there were a few more cases also which came up. Like for example, one case of one girl came up, right? And thousands of rumors started spreading, you know, about the COVID status of that girl. Okay, it happened. I mean, I know, I'm familiar with this case. Then about, then one old man who visited maybe some, I don't know, some religious place, he came back. I think Marcos Wala, that Marcos Wala came to Burma camp and his pictures and all the information started to be circulated and police started taking an action. And don't you think that it's a contradiction? And let me tell you why this is contradiction because in this case, you know, the government in Raja's case, government has decided to reveal his identity in the interest of public welfare, right? Now under what rule, under what regulation of Nagaland COVID rules, this has been done. I'm not aware of it, right? We have to go into the details of Nagaland COVID rules 2020. There is one regulation which is in function at this point of time in Nagaland, right? So we have to see whether that provision is there in the rules or not. If it is not there, then definitely Raja's family, you know, can take state to concern high court, you know, and file, you know, repetition against the action of the state. Okay, because Supreme Court has already settled the position. But now here I'm just talking in terms of ifs and buts. Okay, because we are dealing with extraordinary circumstances. But as per the notification, they have clearly mentioned that, you know, in the public interest to stop the spreading of the virus and this and that, right? They have taken this decision. Now, the validity of the decision of the government has to be decided by the concern court, right? And that validity of the decision will be decided if Raja's family decides to move against the move of the state and challenge it before the, you know, either high court or before the Supreme Court. Because for me, I'm completely in a position to say that it's a violation of individual right. If suppose, if the state is like, for example, what happened in HIV cases, right? There is a privacy clause. Okay, and Supreme Court has also declared that no HIV cases will ever be revealed. But still rumors are spreading about the people who are being infected about HIV or who may not be infected with HIV. This is unfortunately what exactly is happening with the COVID-19. Social discrimination is everywhere. So if that is the case, then who gave government right to declare his name? I actually, I was so surprised when this came in the news, right? That was not necessary. We have other ways to protect what government talks about, you know, the spreading of the coronavirus. We should not take one person responsible for, you know, the spreading of the outbreak and this and that. So what my understanding is that if we want to test the validity of the notification, number one, we have to go to, we have to go through the current COVID-19 rules, you know, given by this Nagaland State Assembly, right? And second, it depends on the family and Mr. Raja himself if he wants to challenge what has government done and if he's not happy or if he thinks that his right is violated, he can move to High Court and Supreme Court. Definitely there is a case. I mean, I'm very open about that. Even I was so surprised. Any lawyer will be surprised, okay? After reading that notification. Now when it comes to this question number two, okay? That talks about quarantine, right? Okay, so can we quarantine ourselves in the house? Okay, let me tell you once again. There are some cases, okay? Where in people have tried to quarantine themselves in the house, okay? But they were not allowed. Like what happened in Maharashtra, one family, okay? They were willing to, you know, quarantine themselves in the house, but state government did not allow them. Now the question is, can exception be made? My question, the question is, can exception be made? Now see, exception we cannot make. It is law or the policy maker has to make an exception. So therefore, I am, yeah, sir, cool, one second. Yes, yes, okay. So the question is, logically, we can say that yes, I am capable to take care of myself. And yes, sir, cool, yeah, sure, sure, sure. I'm just concluding the second answer. Yeah, so basically, it depends on the government, not depends on us. Yeah, so whether to quarantine ourselves or whether not to quarantine ourselves, are they quarantine themselves? Yeah. Okay, okay. Yeah, yes. Okay, yes, second question. Kulu, you can go ahead with your question, sir. Thanks, thanks, Anirul, I think I'm done. See, Anirul, just one heads up, because we have lack of time, we're probably gonna need the answers a bit short. So I just wanna know, based on your experience, or whatever you're aware of, has there been a precedent for, is there a case where somebody has sued the government for disobeying its own order? Are you aware of any? Yeah, there are many cases. Yes, yes, yes, yes, there are many cases. There are many cases. Government has equaled up with this question. There are cases. Yes, there are cases. What did they get? What did they sue the governments for? Was it money? Was it reinstatement? What were the damages? Are you aware of any? I just wanna, yes or no? A couple of cases are there, a couple of cases are there. Okay, if the government servant, there is a government rule in existence, and governments are acting in contradiction with the rule in substance, okay? Rule in prevalence, then definitely the action has been taken. And if the party has initiated, then the damages has been asked, definitely. Like for example, especially in case of Rajas, okay? When the privacy of the person is at stake, right? And the notification which has been issued, what is the legal standing of notification? It's still a big question. What is the constitutional standing of the notification? I mean, it's still a big question. What, whether they were awarded anything? Were they awarded cash, or how did they compensate? See, the damage... I mean, to add to it, has the basement resolved as such, or is there no resolution till date? No, no, no. The cases has been resolved. Cases has been resolved. Whenever the instances happen, when government servants, government officers, they are contravening their own orders, contravening their own directions, okay? Then the cases can be moved against them, okay? With relevant repetitions. And yes, the damages have been awarded, the reliefs have been awarded, okay? So if, suppose there's a personal loss because of the actions of the government servant, the personal loss has occurred to whom, right? Then to tackle that, I can ask for damages. That is very much possible. And there are so many precedents available. I mean, I'm not able to recall the cases, but yes, there are case laws. Why not? Okay, fine. I just wanted to know whether you were able to recall any. Thank you. Thank you so much. Thank you so much, Dr. Anuradha. I think since we are running short of time, we will not take any more questions right now, but I am going to pose Dr. Anuradha's email ID. We can continue the discussion with him over email after this session is done as well. I myself had a question which I wanted to ask, but yes, I'll carry it over with him in person. So thank you so much, everyone, for having joined us for this session. It has been quite helpful for all of us. And thank you so much for all of you. And I wish you stay safe. And yeah, thank you so much. So this end our session here. Thank you. Thank you so much. Thank you. Thank you.