The Delhi High Court has quashed all criminal proceedings against 70 Indian nationals who were accused of housing foreign attendees of the Tablighi Jamaat congregation in March 2020, citing a complete absence of evidence that they violated COVID-19 norms or posed any threat to public health.
Justice Neena Bansal Krishna, in an order dated July 17 (released on Friday), held that there was “not a whisper” in any FIR or chargesheet to indicate that the petitioners were COVID-19 positive, had violated quarantine, or engaged in any prohibited activity that could spread the virus.
“There is not a whisper in the entire chargesheet that any of these petitioners were found COVID-19 positive or that they had stepped out of the Markaz after March 24, 2020 or that they were likely to spread COVID-19,” the court observed, noting the accused had tested negative and remained in quarantine under medical supervision.
The court declared that continuing the proceedings would amount to an “abuse of process” and held that no prima facie case was made under Sections 188, 269, or 270 of the IPC—relating to disobedience of public orders and acts likely to spread infection.
The 70 petitioners had been booked for allegedly hosting foreign Tablighi Jamaat members at the Nizamuddin Markaz during the nationwide lockdown imposed to contain the coronavirus outbreak. While many foreign nationals either accepted plea deals or were acquitted, these Indian residents had continued to face prosecution.
However, the High Court noted that the petitioners were already residing at the Markaz before the lockdown took effect and had no means to leave after restrictions were imposed. “They were helpless people, who got confined on account of lockdown,” the court said, adding that merely residing at the Markaz did not constitute a violation of any government order or the Epidemic Diseases Act.
The court also emphasized that the gathering did not amount to a post-lockdown congregation for any political, religious, or social purpose, and thus did not breach prohibitory orders under Section 144 CrPC.
Justice Krishna underlined that the restrictions issued under the Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897 and the Disaster Management Act, 2005, primarily applied to those who were COVID-positive or were evading quarantine, which did not apply to the petitioners.
Advocate Ashima Mandla, appearing for the petitioners, had argued that there was no documentation proving infection or intent to spread the disease. The Delhi Police had opposed the plea, maintaining that the petitioners had violated restrictions by sheltering foreigners who attended the Tablighi Jamaat event.
Rejecting this argument, the court held that the chargesheets failed to establish the basic ingredients of the offences alleged and reiterated that most similar cases across the country had ended in acquittal or discharge.
