The role of the judiciary in our society ha’s dramatically changed over the past 15 months As an organ of the State, it has splendidly risen to the challenges facedin the light of the COVID-19 pandemic inmany ways The raging pandemic hasseverelyaffected the rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India and theconstitutional values that are paramount This chapter will address the sweeping andunprecedented changes that have occurredin these past months, the mannerinwhich the judiciary has responded, and it’s effects onthe society we now findourselves in.

The Indian Constitution clearly demarcates the three wings of the State, namely, thelegislature, the executive, and the judiciary The unprecedented pandemic of COVID-19 has disrupted the entire world The lives of people have completelychanged It has not made any distinction between rich or poor, black or white, raceor religion Article 14 of the Constitution of India, 1950 has been applied withprecision and perfection bythe pandemic.

Like all emerging economies, India isstruggling to bring about an egalitariansociety with social, economic, and political rights being assured to all human beingsby means of a wellwritten, intricate, andeffective Constitution which is now over 70 years old Though 70 years is not a longtime in the life of a nation, from itscolonial past tothe stage ofa sovereign, socialist, secular, democratic republic, Indiahas made vast strides With the demographic advantage of being the second most

populous country in the world, following China, India has had its own uniqueadvantages and problems Though India wassubjugated by its colonial masters for 200 years, a brief study of that periodwould indicate clearly and unambiguouslythat the colonial rulers had no desire to ameliorate the dismal plightof the citizenssubjugated by them While some institutionswere set up for basic governance, suchas healthcare, education, and employment, the eradication of hunger and economicprogress was not within the zone of consideration The geographic spread ofthecountry and the sharp division between the rural and urban population, due to thepredominantly primitive agrarian economy, accentuated the problems of the countryeven during normal times.

Among the many institutions set up byour erstwhile colonial rulers., the judiciarywas modelled on the common law framework, with a hierarchicaljudicialsystem.

For the protection ofcontractual, industrial, family., and the whole branch of civilrights, the remedy was through the subordinate judiciary which was organised inthree tiers below the High Courts For the criminal justice system-., there was a similar threetier mechanism For the protection of constitutionally guaranteedfundamental and other rights, the High Courts in every state were charged with theresponsibility of redressing the grievances of citizens.

The constitutional scheme in India was such that the Supreme Court and the High Courts were granted independent constitutional jurisdiction The Supreme Court under Article 32 had the power to issue directions., orders, or writs to protectfundamental rights and the High Courts were given a wider perspective, to look atall infractions under Article 226. Irrespective of whether these rights stemmed fromstate or central laws, both courts had concurrent jurisdiction The unwritten codethat was followed was that if there was an issue that was being considered by the Supreme Court, the High Courts normally would not intervene and would refrainfrom passing orders on the same untilthe Supreme Court had decided the issue, unless the Supreme Court itself, directedthatthe High Court could proceed toexamine it.

The High Courts also dealt with a large volume of litigation, relating to severalother fields such as company law, taxation, succession., and judicial review Moststates had a High Court in a single geographical location within a state Some High Courts had more than one locationalbench within the state For the entire country, there was a single apex court that was established.

For the systemto run efficiently, the workload in all these courts was animportant factor to consider For example, the number of judges, per thousandofthe populationand the number of cases per judge, would be clearly indicative of theefficiency of the system Onboth these counts, India”s record is dismal Though the

State is the largest litigant, and is also a cause for litigation, no effective mechanismis in place, nor is there any serious endeavour made, to analyse and resolve theproblems created by the various State agencies, which has resulted in enormousdelays in effective judicial adjudication of disputes.

This problem was rather acute and had reached alarming proportions even beforethe pandemic Several committees and commissions had studied the problem andhad given erudite reports and suggestionsSome attempts had been made to redressthe situation, though these efforts have remained largely insufficient to tackle a problem of this magnitude.

While the constraints of the judicial system loomed large, the economic positionof the State also caused significant alar m among economists Several measures weretaken to improve thisaspect as well, butto move an elephant, an army of antscannot succeed The conundrum of the economic and fiscal constraints on theexecutive is somewhatcomplex and isakin to the chicken and egg question Theexecutive is juggling too manyballs that are moving at an fast pace, leading to thejuggler becoming breathless The lackof adequate, committedand efficientmanpower in the State sector is the bane of the Indianexecutive While there aremany extraordinary officerswho are extremely committed and honest, it is a common experience thatfinding such officers is like trying to find a needle inahaystack.

The legislature both at the central and state level also faces similar constraints.

The calibre of the members of the legislature, over the years postIndependence hasdwindled to an abysmal level The emphasis on electoral reforms has not beenadequate With a large numberof illiterateand uneducated voters, political parties, without exception, have resorted to foul methods of winning over citizensthroughmonetary and other enticements This is the scenario inwhich India was when thepandemic struck The constraints faced by the country were soon to be accentuatedand would seriously impede the functioning of all three wings of the State.

While the Constitution guaranteed several fundamental rights to the citizens, most importantly, the right to life and liberty under Articles 19 and 21, thepandemic made it impossible for citizens to enjoy these rightsIt had a dominoeffect onevery aspect of one”s life—it impeded economic activity, the liberty to movearound freely, the right to earn a livelihood, and access to medical care, etc Unlikemany western governments in advanced economies, where the State could afford tocompensate its citizens whose earnings were affected, this was an impossibilityin India The sheer magnitude of the problem left the State in a helpless condition.

The complete lockdown, which was first announced on 22 March 2020, was Upholding Constitutional Values During COVID-19 initially made out to be a temporary measure, but fifteen monthslater, it turned outto be more or less a permanent feature.

The Judiciary 2.0—Judicial Acti vism during COVID-19 and the Emergence of a New and Improved Judiciary

The role of the State in protecting its citizens and providing the basic necessitiesof life has come into sharp focus While the executive isgrappling with thisenormous problem with limited resources, as the situation emerges, it seems that likeeveryone else, the State is trying to find a black cat in a dark room with its eyesblindfolded The reasonfor this is that the pandemic came unannounced and haskept everyone guessing while raging unabated on the world over, baffling themedical profession, the administrators, the executive, and the legislature The laws inplace were found to be archaic, insufficient, and ineffective The fears ofthepopulace were insurmountable The tragic loss of a large number of young and oldwas heartwrenching.

In this context, the judiciary”s role in protecting the rights of the citizens, interpreted in the context ofmigrant labourers, universal medical insurance, accessto healthcare, medicines, and vaccines; as well aseconomic rights., in the context ofindividuals facing huge losses in business., the effects of the pandemic on privatehospitals, the plights of vaccine manufacturers, etc, has come to the fore.

In this scenario-., the judiciary has emerged as the lone sentinel., like the boy whostood on the burning deck of Casabianca and tried to keep the flag of its citizens” rights fluttering to some extent.

While the executive scrambled all the jets to confront the enemy aircraft whichhad intruded into its airspace, it found that the pilots had suddenly turned blind, the aircraft had flat tyres, the fuelsupply had run out, and there were noarmaments to be loaded onto the aircraft to protect the country This meant that the pandemic had invaded the country, and the medical infrastructure was notsufficient, the manpower in the form ofdoctors and paramedicswas illequipped; medicines, oxygen, and other supplies were not forthcoming, and even if all of thiswas available, it was not possible to muster up a stiff fight as no one had properknowledge or information about the disease, its progression, and prognosis.

In this scenario, the helplessness of the executive stirred the judiciary intoaction The expansive jurisdiction of thecourts in the form of public interestlitigation (PIL was resorted to by the High Courts and the Supreme Court Theexecutive at every level was called into question The inaction of the executive was viewed seriously and where appropriate, specific directions were given The High Court of Karnataka in,1 issued a slew of directions on relief measures during the lockdown, while considering various factors ranging from measures taken to protectvulnerable communities, migrant workers, residents of slums, etcas well as accessto food and essential commodities, medica l supplies, animal welfare, and parolefor incarcerated prisoners during COVID- 19. In keeping with the emergent needof the times, the Court passed several interim orders to tackle the variousimmediate issues that arose through the pandemic, on an urgent basis, such as the Interim Order dated 30 March 2020 in which the High Court issued directions to the government to take a decision and formulate an action plan to ensure thesupply of rations to those without rationcards on the basis of identificationdocuments On 9 April 2020, the High Court issued another Interim Order in thecase to ensure that two months pensionwas paid to the transgender populationunder the Mythri Scheme.

Courts also sensitised the various officers and agencies who had statutory dutiesto act within their powers, mindful of their constraints, in order to provide somesuccour in difficult times Many High Courts took up cases on their own, by wayof² the High Court of Tripura initiated a provide data with respect to whether therewas a scientific model in place to predictwith reasonable accuracy the peak number of corona positive cases per day, therebypredicting the required number of hospital bedsand oxygen requirement The High Court also directed the State to provide information pertaining to the availability ofremdesivir and other lifesaving drugs The Court also questioned the state”s preparedness with respect to paediatric COVID-19 patients and whether specialarrangements had been made to cater to their care.

In³ the High Court of Madhya Pradeshdirected the state government to place i nformation on record with respect to thenumber of ventilators obtained under the PM Cares Fund and how many were Upholding Constitutional Values During COVID-19 Mohammed Arif Jameel vUnion of India WP No-.. 6435/2020, suo motu proceedings, and also allowed publicspirited citizens, nongovernmental organisations, and people”s representatives to air the problems of vast sections of society who were adversely affected and who had no means to seek redress In the case of Court on its Own Motion vState, Through Chief Secretary, suo motu PIL requiring the state administration toReference (Suo Motu vUnion of India,

PILs were filed on a vast array of issues, such as the rights of people to fileproceedings when limitation was running out, or others dealing with COVID-19 insurance, etc In⁴ the Supreme Court of India directed the Union of India to launch the National Insurance Scheme for Disaster Related Deaths in In dia that was recommended in the Finance Commission”s 15th Report, which would also act as a socialprotection scheme.

The courts, bytheir directions, were able to take cognisance of and address theseissues during the pandemic by effectively directing governmental authorities, monitoring them, and channelising the required government machinery that wasstill grappling with the magnitude of the problem.

In WP (PIL No. /21,⁵ the High Court of Jharkhand passed an order to ensure that theguidelines on the management of dead bodies were followed, in view of the vastnumber of dead and the resultant improper disposal of bodies It also issueddirections to ensure that the bodies of those that died due to COVID-19 werehanded over totheir kith and kin for their families toperform last rites asper theirreligious customs.

In⁶ the Gauhati High Courtunconditionally extended a host of Interim Orders passed by it during the secondwave of the COVID-19 pandemic It also held that any decree for eviction-./ dispossessionor demolition which was passed by any court, tribunal, or authorityduring this period would remain in abeyance It also extended the bail granted to theaccused in criminal cases that would expire.

Large sections of society were forced to migrate in difficult circumstances in thefond hope of protecting their life and surviving the pandemic The courts played animportant role in trying to find ways and means of getting them some relief Several High Courts examined the peculiar problems in their respective territories Inthefirst wave of the pandemic, towards the latter half of the year 2020, the problem ofmigrants returning en masse to their hometowns led to acute distress Instances of a large number of people walking with their belongings for thousands of kilometres The Court also sought the state government.”s response on the fixation of Reepak Kansal vUnion of India, WP. (Civil No. 554/2021, Sitwanto DeviMahila Kalyan Sansthan vThe State of Jharkhand, PIL (Suo Motu No. / dated 10 May 2021,

In the case of⁷ the Supreme Courtof India directed that a Common National Database be established for all organisedworkers in the country, inorder to ensure that such workers are able to access and reapthe benefits of various government schemes The Court also directed the governmentto provide dry rations and access to a community kitchen for the strandedmigrantworkers under the Atma Nirbhar or other schemes The state governments were alsodirected tofile affidavits indicating the mechanism bywhich dry rations would bedistributed tomigrant workers who did not possess a ration card.

The suddenness of the pandemic led to a situation where there was no preventivevaccine or any medication to cure the disease Socialmedia and the conventionalmedia were agog with discussions, viewpoints, halfbaked medical information, andscenes of distress.

The courts often took note of these reports and appointedcommittees or called for reports from governmental and other agencies about theveracityof these media reports, and the extent of relief that was planned.

In the case of⁹ the Supreme Court, while consideringthe plight of individuals seeking helpon COVID-19 support platforms, who weretargetedon social media and harassed, directed the central and state governments tonotify all Chief Secretaries/Directors General of Police/Commissioners of Police thatany harassment caused to such individuals would attract the coercive exercise ofjurisdiction by the Court The Court also noted the unprecedented humanitariancrisis that the pandemic had wreaked, and considered and issued directions onvarious other aspects as well, including medical infrastructure, oxygen availabilityand allocation, vaccine pricing and disbursal, potential of compulsory licensing ofvaccines, the supply of essential drugs and black marketing, etc.

The lockdown measures also led to many protests that employees in theunorganised sector and selfemployed sectorbore the brunt of economic distresswith loss of jobs, business, earnings, andmeans ofsustenance The courts goaded the Upholding Constitutional Values During COVID-19 In Re: Problems and Miseries of Migrant Laborers, In Re: Distribution of essential supply and services during the pandemic, Suo Motu WP (Civil No. 3/21,

The medical fraternity and theparamedics were overburdenedPrivate medical establishments were forced tosurrender a part of their facilities for the treatment of patients and a spate oflitigation came before the courts relating to the right of the State tocommandeerprivate medical establishments for free treatment.

There were parallel proceedingsbefore many High Courts relating to thesupply of essential medication As the firstwave subsided, though a second wave was predicted by virologists, the State relaxedits stand in order to restore a semblance of normalcy This led to completead hoc to cater to the flood of victims who needed hospitalisation.

The courts” proactive role inupholding the fundamental rights of the citizenscontinued with monitoring the availability of oxygenand pushing the governmentto investigate negligence by the administrators leading to mass casualties Theallocation of central resources to the states, particularly medical oxygen, was thesubject matter of manycases before the various High Courts and the Supreme Courteven set up a 12-member National Task Force to monitor the supply of oxygen to the states and Union Territories.

At that stage, the Supreme CourtThough the courts have gone above and beyond intheir effort to alleviate thesuffering of the people through the course of this humanitarian crisis, by issuingdirections and orders on a wide array of issues, they have also had toconsider thebest interests of the State whose resources have been stretched to the limit intheeffort to quell the contagion of COVID- 19. In a recent PIL before the Supreme Court, the central government filed a lengthy affidavit on the question of whetherexgratia payment of Rupees four lakh may be paid to the victims of COVID-19 by the central government, stating that the utilisation of scarce government resources to Upholding Constitutional Values During COVID-19 suo motu decided to monitor and regulate the process Thisled to severe criticism of the action of the Supreme Court in trying to restrictthe High Courts from continuing to exercise their constitutional power the Supreme Court thereafter made it clear that the pendency of proceedings before the Supreme Court would not in any way affectthe role of the High Courts which were free to continue their monitoring.

The Judiciary”s Advent into the 21st Century

The central government also submitted in the case that the payment ofsaid compensation would exhaust all disaster relief funds available to thegovernment Combatting the pandemic has resulted in grave fiscal constraints forboth the centre and the states Courts, as organs of the State, have had to remaincognisant of their dutyto be consciou’s of this fact while passing orders.

The courts have, on multiple occasions, considered the issue of waiver of intereston bank loans.

The questionto be considered thenfollows as to the effects of suchwaivers on banks and financial institutions Who will face the consequences of suchwaivers if issued, since banks, including public sector banks, have alsosuffered gravelosses through the course of the pandemic.? To some extent, the courts have tried toprovide some relief in certain cases However, there is no standard rule to be appliedin all cases The courts are not in possession of a magic wand by which they canalleviate all the problemsof all the parties They can only channelise the resourcesavailable in the State and make sure that they are used efficiently and equitably Onesuch instance is that of the case of Union of India,in which the Supreme Courtheld that there would not be anycharge of interest on interest, compoundinterest, or penal interest from anyborrowers who availed of the RBI”s loanmoratorium scheme between 1 March 2020 and 31 August 2020 during the COVID-19 lockdown.

The Court, however, deniedthe plea to extend the moratorium period and also denied the grant of a total waiverof interest.

Large sectionsof employees in the State and nonState sectors were themselvesinfected by COVID-19, leading to hospitalisation, isolation, quarantine, and a largenumber of fatalities Many breadwinnerslost their lives The number of peopleworking decreased, both in the government and in the judiciary The staff required SmallScale Industries Manufacturers Association v.

While one section of the stakeholders welcomed this, large sections opposed themove and clamoured for restoration of status quo ante or physical hearings Thatwas not possible due to the lockdown and the restrictions on the movementofpeople The adoption of modern communication tools like Zoom, Cisco WebEx., Microsoft Teams, Jitsy, Blue Jeans, etcpushed the lawyer community to adapt to the changing times Manylawyers did not have the hardware to do so The Supreme Court set up video conference facilities that lawyers could use free of charge toparticipate in court hearings Judges oftenstepped down from their ivory towers anddid not hesitate in using other communication tools such as cell phones, WhatsApp, etcto communicate with lawyers in the course of hearings ManyHigh Courtsswitched over seamlessly and continued their hearings as efficiently as the old systemof physical appearance Manylawyers benefitted by being able to appear in courts inmultiple geographical areas while sittingin the comfort of their homes or officeswith two to three screens infront of them The archaic court system of filing hardcopies slowly gave way to electronic filing and rules of procedure were liberalised toenable the courts to continue their role Newage technologywas embraced andmade fulluse of through the course of the pandemic.

In order to prevent overcrowding, the Supreme Court and the High Courtspassed many general directions extending the periodof limitation, in many cases, during the continuance of the lockdown The courts developed an attitude of beingextraordinarily considerate to requests for adjournments on grounds of ill health, quarantine, isolation, or death amon g the lawyer and client community Nonappearance of parties was nolonger a ground to dismiss cases or pass adverse orders..

In contrast, these concessions could not be fathomed prior to the pandemic whenthe courts were far stricter and these requests would be viewed as diversionarytactics In this milieu, a large number of cases were heard by the Supreme Court, the High Courts, and the subordinate courts Many important constitutional litigationswere effectively heard by the ConstitutionBench of the Supreme Court and otherbenches and were effectively resolved, such as the case ofThe system of hybrid hearings with one of the parties appearing in person and theopposite party through video conferencingwas also innovated.

Failure of the Criminal and Civil Justice System during COVID-19

296 The judiciary showed great statesmanship and resilience and worked under greatconstraints of the fear of infection, inadequate staff, and pressure of work, but it didnot falter No doubt, there were constraints, especiallyin the subordinate courts andthe criminal courts due to the difficulty of holding trialsand systemic constraints ofeffective video hearings These were inevitable having regard to the nature andmagnitude of the problem Many arbitral tribunals switched to virtual mode andfound ways and means of even conducting elaborate trials during the pandemic, with lawyers, arbitrators, clients, and witnesses sitting in different locations.

While the judiciary innovated, its actionswere often highlighted How far can thecourts go? How equipped are the courts to supervise policy and executive action?

What is the role of the State, given itseconomic constraints, to give financialsupport to the citizens in distress? Can medical facilities be set up by the fiat of a court? Who will govern the rights of the medical fraternity and grant them succourwhen they become victims of the pandemic?—these are some of the questions thatwere raised in the face of the evolving role of the judiciary, whose answers are noteasy or clear With each order that gets resistance from the executive or publiccriticism, the courts reconsider their stand, and a selfimposed restriction by thecourts seems to be the middle path In the extraordinary circumstances that havearisen, the judiciary, which includes the fraternityof lawyers, has performed to thebest of its ability in ensuring that the Constitutionis protected and enforced.

The severe restrictions on the movement of people during the lockdown, coupledwith the archaic manner in which the courts function and court records are kept, hasled to a complete breakdown of the civil and criminal justice system at the lowestrung of the ladder Modern telecommunication facilities have not reached everynook and corner of the country except for large metropolitan areas where powersupply is guaranteed 24 hours a day The farflung areas, such as semiurban andrural areas are plagued by frequent disruptions in power supply The curtailment ofpublic transport systems inboth cities and rural areas alike has severely restricted themovement of clientsas well as lawyers The inability of the infrastructure inthesubordinate courts to switch over to modern tools and the lack of training forjudicial officers has led to a situation where cases have only multiplied and are notbeing resolved These constrictions have resulted in an increase in the arrears on thecourts which are bound to take a very long time to be overcome even after normalcyhas resumed.

Expansion of Right to Life and the Role of the State

A large number of accused and convicted persons who are in jail have no meansof securing bail In some cases, High Courts have come to their rescue and directedthe release of undertrial and convicted persons whose appeals are pending in order toreduce the population of inmates injails In the case of-.

COVID-19 pandemic, directed that all convicts and undertrial prisoners thatwerereadmitted to prisons after bein g released on bail the previous year be released on interim bail of 90 days.

Assam,“frontline warriors” and directed that they be vaccinated for their safetyand also for the safety of the juveniles.

The cornerstone for the exercise ofconstitutionaljurisdiction by the High Courts is Article 226 of the Constitutionof India, 1950. It empowersthe High Courts to issuehigh prerogative writs for the purpose of enforcing constitutional rights Part III of the Constitution of India, 1950 guarantees certain fundamental rightsto citizens, one ofthembeing the right to life under Article 21. The role of the State in protecting thelives of its citizens has come to the fore during the pandemic Since India doesnothave any system of medical insurance for all citizensand that isleft to the individualdecision of the citizen, in the case of the poorest sections ofsociety, the question hasbeen raised as to whether the State shouldsupport them by providing food andshelter, and most importantlymedical care The State did assume this role but whenthe measures taken were found to be arbitrar y, inadequate, or sporadic, courts steppedin and soughtto protect the right to life of the citizens.

Indecided on 23 June 2021, a DivisionBench of the High Court of Meghalaya considered the questionof whethervaccination can be made mandatory andwhether such mandatory actioncould Upholding Constitutional Values During COVID-19 In Re Contagion of Covid Virus in prisons in the State of Andhra Pradesh, Suo Motu WP 10151/2021 dated 7 May 2021, the High Court of Andhra Prades h in view of the second wave of the Several directions have been issued by High Courts to vaccinate prisoners and those in employment of prisons and to en sure adequate medical care for them The Gauhati High Court in the case of Lawyers Association Guwahati vThe State of PIL No. 24/2020 stated thatcaretakers ofju venile centres were akin to Registrar General vThe State of Meghalaya,

The Court finally held that the burden lay on the State to disseminate correctinformation and sensitise citizens of the entire exercise of vaccinationwith its prosand cons in order to facilitate informed decision making, particularly when thebeneficiaries have been fed with deliberatemisinformation regarding the efficacy of the vaccinationby entities with oblique motives.

There has been a complete failure on the part of the central and state governments across the country to enforce and ensure compliance with COVID-19- appropriate behaviour despite the harsh le ssons learnt during the first wave The various governments have on multiple occasions, in keeping financial and economic considerations at the forefront, chosen to ignore the humanitarian repercussions of the pandemic, which has taken the lives of countless citizensleading to a situation that is now being referred to as a crime against humanity The question remains as to whether the State, as the body that has the responsibility of safeguarding the right to life of all its citizens could be held responsible for the resultant horrors that these decisions have affected The disaster managementmachinery of the State completelybroke down and was unable to act to alleviate the effects of the pandemiceven to a small degree Despite having a lead time of over three monthsadvance warning, as the world came to know of the extentof the contagion of the virus of COVID-19 in December-. 2019, the government, and the di sastermanagement machinery of the State, failed totake preemptive measuresto prevent its spread in the country and it was only months after its virulent prol iferation in India that the government announced the first national lockdown While the government has, to a large extent, been unsuccessful in protecting the population, the judiciary has stepped in and done what it could in the circumstances To what extent the courts can effectively change the governance structure, however, has been the subject matter of intense debate Unless some statute vests certain specificrights, can the judiciary be expected toassume the omnibus role of protecting all citizens.” lives even if that is beyond the capacity ofthejudiciary? In a recentcase being heard before the Supreme Court,26 the centralgovernment filed an affidavit addressing the subject of excessive judicialintervention, stating thatthere was “little room for judicial interference” in a globalpandemic where the strategy of the nation was driven byexpert medical andscientific opinion It also stated that “anyoverzealous, thoughwellmeaning, judicialintervention” could lead to unforeseen and unintended consequences”.

Though the governments” have not deniedtheir role, the courts have pulled upthegovernment for failing to act in a rational, objective, and reasonable manner in thedischarge of this obligation Many irrational actions of the government have beenquestioned by the courts The nationalpolicyon vaccination throughout the countrytoo has led to considerable litigation the government has revisited the policy ofproviding free vaccination toall citizensabove 18 years of age, entailing a very largeexpenditure Thoughthe courtsare aware of their inherent limitations, theyhave beenproviding the necessary impetus and push for a national policy to fight the pandemicand to protect the constitutional rights of the citizens as far as possible.

The proactive role the judiciary has assumed through the course of the pandemichas certainly had the effect of upholding the rule of law and thereby, constitutionalvalues The courts have worked tirelessly towards ensuring thatall citizens haveequal protection of the law bystriving towards universal oxygen supply, speedy andwidespread vaccination, etc The courts have also upheldthe value of fraternityenumeratedinthe Indian Constitution or brotherhood byrefusing preferentialtreatment for COVID-19 careand insisting on treatment equivalent to the medicaltreatment meted out to the common man The pandemic, the various situationsthatarose in its wake, and the actions of each State body that followed, reinforced theobjectives behind Montesquie u”s Doctrine of Separationof Powers and the Doctrineof Judicial Independence byproviding the courts with multiple occasions to act asacheck and balance on the executive The courtsdid on innumerable occasionsexercise their powers of judicial review and judicial activismthrough the variousorders passed and reliefs granted towards alleviating the havoc wreaked by thepandemic The judiciary through the course of COVID-19, certainly lived up to the Upholding Constitutional Values During COVID-19

The courts have cracked the whip on many occasions and ensured adherence to COVID-19 protocol, rules, and regulation’s established for the welfare of thepopulation at large By ensuring that people follow the law, wear masks, onlyindulge in COVID-19-appropriate behaviour, and penalising violations oftheselaws, the courts have been constant defenders of the rule of law Where thegovernment has fallen short, the courts have stepped in These actions havebenefitted large sections of the society, who may not have approached the court intheir own right, either due to ignorance, poverty, or financial or other reasons.

Public spirited people have stepped in, by filing a multitude of PILs which thecourts have examined while ignoring normal rules of — locus standi on many occasions, and in so doing have ensured that not only legal but constitutional rights are given effect The result of this paradigm shift in the role of the judiciary is surely that people”s accessto justice, a necessity of the utmost importance in these trying times, has not only remained steadfast but perhaps has even improved.