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.
As of April 28, Odisha has 118 cases of COVID-19. Of these, 37 have been cured, and 1 person has died. In this blog, we summarise some of the key decisions taken by the Government of Odisha until April 28 for containing the spread of COVID-19 in the state.
Before the lockdown
On March 24, the state government enforced state-wide lockdown. Before enforcing it, the state government took several measures for preventing the spread of COVID-19 besides declaring it as a State disaster on March 13. Some of the key measures are summarised below.
Health Measures
The Odisha COVID-19 Regulations, 2020: On March 18, the Government issued The Odisha COVID-19 Regulations, 2020. These regulations are valid for a year. As per these regulations, both government and private hospitals must have dedicated COVID-19 isolation facilities.
Foreign returnees: On March 16, the Government issued an order for foreign returnees to: (i) mandatorily register on COVID portal within 24 hours of their arrival (ii) home quarantine themselves for 14 days. An incentive of 15,000 rupees will be provided for registration and completing home quarantine.
Prisons: On March 17, the Government released precautionary measures to be taken in prisons by authorities and inmates. Newly admitted prisoners should be quarantined in different wards for a week. From March 18, e-Mulakat was allowed in District headquarters jails.
Private Health Care Facilities: On March 19, the Department of Health and Family Welfare issued guidelines for Private Health Care Facilities. The guidelines specify the hospitals to have a COVID-19 specific counter with separate entrance, regulating the entry of visitors, and infection control measures.
Media: On March 21, the Department of Health and Family Welfare issued guidelines to the media not to publish any information or interview the infected persons, their relatives, doctors and support medical staff of them.
Increasing the health workforce in the state: The Department of Health and Family Welfare issued an order on March 23 for the engagement of Staff Nurses and other Paramedics on a short term basis. The hired employees will be provided with additional incentives.
Administrative Measures
State crisis management committee: On March 4, a State crisis management committee was formed to take policy decisions regarding cluster containment.
Prohibiting strikes of employees: On March 21, the government issued an order prohibiting any strikes by employees engaged in the supply of drinking water and sanitation in urban local bodies. The order is valid for six months.
Public and private establishments: On March 21, the government requested all public and private establishments not to terminate the employees or reduce their wages.
Movement Restrictions
Closure of commercial establishments: On March 13, the Department of Health and Family Welfare ordered for the closure of cinema halls, swimming pools, gyms and educational institutions except for holding examinations until March 31.
Suspension of bus services: On March 23, the Department of Health and Family Welfare issued an order suspending intra-state bus services from March 24 and City bus services in all urban local bodies from midnight of March 23.
Lockdown in few districts: On March 21, the government announced lockdown in five revenue districts and eight towns of the state until March 29. The lockdown involved (i) suspension of public transport services (ii) closure of all commercial establishments, offices, and factories (iii) banning the congregation of more than seven people at any public place.
During the lockdown
With two cases in the state, on March 24, the government extended the lockdown to the entire state till March 29. Establishments engaged in the supply of essential goods and services were excluded from this lockdown.
This was followed by a nation-wide lockdown enforced by the central government between March 25 and April 14, now extended till May 3. Before the extension announced by the central government, the state government extended the lockdown in the state till April 30.
Starting from April 20, the central government allowed certain activities in less-affected districts of the country. Further, on April 24, the Ministry of Home Affairs allowed the opening of certain categories of shops with a limited workforce.
Welfare Measures
The Odisha government announced several welfare measures to address the difficulties being faced by people during the lockdown. Key measures include:
Temporary shelter for migrants: On March 28, the government ordered District collectors and Municipal Commissioners to use closed down schools and hostel buildings as temporary shelters for the migrants.
Provision of food in rural areas: On March 30, the government decided to provide hot cooked food for needy people in rural areas at affordable prices. Two meals per day will be provided at Rs 60 for adults and Rs 45 for children per day.
Compensation to family members: The Odisha government will be giving compensation of fifty lakh rupees to the family members of the employees who may die due to COVID-19 and are not covered under insurance scheme of the central government.
Administrative Measures
Ordinances: As the State Assembly is not in session, the government promulgated two ordinances.
The Epidemic Diseases (Amendment) Ordinance, 2020: On April 7, the government promulgated an ordinance to deal with COVID-19 spread. The Ordinance amends Section 2 and 3 of the Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897. The Act provides for the prevention of the spread of dangerous epidemic diseases. The ordinance amends the act to increase the penalty for individuals committing the offences under the act.
The Odisha Contingency Fund (Amendment) Ordinance, 2020: On April 9, the Odisha Government promulgated Odisha Contingency Fund (Amendment) Ordinance, 2020. The ordinance increases the corpus of the contingency fund from 400 crores to 2000 crores. The contingency fund is generally used for meeting any unforeseen expenditure.
Setting up control rooms: On March 26, the Home department set up a round the clock control room for monitoring the issues regarding the implementation of lockdown and stranded Odias in various parts of the country. On March 27 and 28, three control rooms were set up in Bhubaneswar and Delhi for the migrant labourers.
Deferment of salaries: The government announced 70% deferment of salaries of all the elected representatives of the state and 50% deferment for the employees of All India Services such as IAS and IPS.
Implementation of MGNREGS: On March 31, the Department of Panchayati Raj and Drinking Water issued an advisory for the implementation of MGNREGS. Key measures include: (i) Job cards will be provided to people interested in doing unskilled works, (ii) Individual works up to 5 persons is allowed (iii) Hand wash and safe drinking water should be provided at the worksites.
Essential Goods and Services
On March 25, the government authorised certain authorities to issue passes for the free movement of essential goods.
For facilitating the movement of goods, the government allowed the opening of roadside dhabas, and vehicle repair shops situated on Highways. These should be located outside of towns and cities.
Health Measures
Amendments to Odisha COVID-19 regulations, 2020
On April 3, the government added following provisions to the Odisha COVID-19 regulations, 2020: (i) additional duties and responsibilities of hospitals and local bodies such as infection control measures in hospitals among others. (ii) state government or empowered officers can declare any government or private hospital as COVID hospital.
On April 9, wearing masks were made compulsory for the people stepping out their houses and were included in the regulations.
On April 16, the government included the ‘prohibition of spitting in any form in public places’ into the regulations.
Short term engagements: On March 27, the government invited senior professionals having expertise in various sectors such as health care management, international logistics, and charities to work as Honorary Advisors to Government on a voluntary basis. The government issued an order for engagement of microbiologists on a short term basis.
Training of MBBS students- On March 28, the government decided to train the MBBS students of all medical colleges studying 7th, 8th and 9th semesters and deploy them if there is a rise in the number of cases in future. Training of government establishments was taken up in the first phase. Private colleges were also requested to train doctors and students simultaneously.
Additional resources: On April 6, the State Executive Department authorized the Principal Secretary, Department of Health to requisition the services of anybody having expertise in public health care management. When the need arises, the government can use the services of healthcare professionals such as doctors, nursing staff from government or private organisations to assist the state government.
Support to personnel fighting the Pandemic: On April 22, the government announced certain measures to support the personnel fighting COVID-19 in the state. They are
The Government will invoke the National Security Act, 1980 against the individuals causing violence to any member of the medical community such as doctors, nurses, and health workers.
While on duty, if any government employee dies due to COVID-19, the family will get the salary until the retirement date of the deceased employee.
The cremation of the individuals dying due to COVID-19 on duty will be honoured by the state as usually accorded to the martyrs.
Handling the return of migrants from other parts of the country: On April 19, the Revenue and Disaster Management department issued an advisory to Gram Panchayats and Urban Local Bodies for handling the influx of migrants from other parts of the country, once the lockdown is over. The advisory has the following steps.
(i) All local bodies should have registration facilities. People returning from other states should register through their relatives or family members.
(ii) All persons arriving from various states will be quarantined for 14 days.
(iii) An incentive of 2,000 rupees will be provided to the people for completing the quarantine period in the quarantine facilities.
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.
