On 7^th April, 2021, the Delhi High Court passed an order that it is compulsory for a lone driver to wear a mask in his private vehicle and on the violation of the same, one is liable to pay fine. The reasoning given by the Delhi High Court is that while rolling down the windows, not wearing of a mask will pose a threat to any person standing at the traffic signal. It is understood that this is a situation of emergency and rules are meant for the safety of the public.

Contrary to the opinion of the Delhi High Court, the Union Health Ministry had not made it compulsory for a lone driver to wear a mask. However, when it comes to the authority of an individual State, the State Government has the liberty to frame rules and regulations as per their own understanding of requirement. Hence, although bizarre, it is a policy which cannot be avoided by the public as the public itself is at the receiving end of the threat.

The Delhi High Court, while passing the order, also made a statement that a private vehicle is included under the purview of ‘public place’. This is another concern for debate because logically it may seem pretty bizarre to certain individuals. In order to answer this debatable issue, it is pertinent to understand the legal aspects of ‘public place.

Definition of ‘public place’ under Section 2 (34) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 means a road, street, way or other place, whether a thoroughfare or not, to which the public have a right of access, and includes any place or stand at which passengers are picked up or set down by a stage carriage. Hence, the vendors and the traffic personnel on the road are at a public place and not the lone driver within closed doors and windows of his private car.

Also, if we refer to the judgment of Murli S. Deora v. Union of India, the Apex Court had laid down a ban on smoking in public places as the other people present at that place will become victims of passive smoking. Here, the understanding of ‘public place’ clearly translates to a certain place where public has access. Because, if not this way, the judgment would make no sense if no other person is affected by the act of a smoker. If we apply the same analogy to the present situation, consideration of a private car as a public place seems a little illogical.

It is agreed that wearing of masks is an act of caution and there is no harm in following it. At the same time, if we say that a lone driver rolling down the window poses a threat to public, then it is actually the traffic personnel, the toll gate-keepers and the street vendors who are constantly present at a public place which is the ‘road’ and hence, they are supposed to be compelled to wear a mask at all times. To some extent, it may seem reasonable to charge a lone driver with a fine if, at that moment, he has rolled down the window and has not worn a mask, but it looks very unreasonable if the same person is charged with a fine for not wearing a mask even when the window is closed. The pandemic has brought out a scary situation for everyone and considering our nation to have “Aatmanirbhar” citizens, each individual should remain cautious, but imposing restrictions cannot go to an extreme extent where the Government seems to be portrayed as being unreasonable. The charging of fine should remain restricted to situations only when a maskless face if found to be mingling with others in a ‘public place’ as per the legal definition.