Introduction:

In a significant judgment on July 17, 2025, the Delhi High Court quashed 16 criminal cases registered against 70 Indian nationals accused of providing shelter to attendees of the Tablighi Jamaat congregation during the nationwide COVID-19 lockdown. The matter arose from FIRs filed in March 2020, when the government had imposed stringent prohibitory orders under Section 144 of the CrPC and issued directives banning gatherings to contain the spread of the virus. These FIRs alleged violations of government orders and charged the accused under Sections 188, 269, 270, and 120-B of the IPC, among others. Justice Neena Bansal Krishna, while delivering the verdict, observed that continuing such cases would amount to an abuse of the process of law, given the absence of any substantive evidence proving intentional wrongdoing. The Court disposed of all related pleas and directed the quashing of chargesheets, bringing much-needed relief to the petitioners.

Arguments on Behalf of the Petitioners:

Advocate Ashima Mandla, appearing for the petitioners, argued that the allegations were unsubstantiated, misconceived, and unsustainable in law. She emphasized that the petitioners had not participated in any religious congregation but had merely provided temporary shelter to individuals who were left stranded following the abrupt imposition of the lockdown. According to the defense, the prohibitory orders of March 2020 specifically banned large-scale religious gatherings, but there was no evidence that any such event was organized in the premises of the mosques or private residences mentioned in the FIRs.

Mandla contended that most of the accused were implicated solely based on their presence inside mosques, where they had offered accommodation to those who could not return home due to travel restrictions. She highlighted that the FIRs did not allege that the petitioners were COVID-19 positive or that they conducted any gatherings in violation of social distancing norms. The defense further argued that the criminalization of humanitarian acts, such as providing food and shelter during a crisis, sets a dangerous precedent and violates Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution, which guarantee equality and the right to life and personal liberty.

Mandla also drew the Court’s attention to the absence of direct evidence linking the petitioners to the spread of COVID-19. She asserted that the charges were framed on conjecture rather than concrete proof and urged the Court to prevent unnecessary harassment of citizens under the garb of pandemic-related restrictions.

Arguments on Behalf of the State (Delhi Police):

The Delhi Police opposed the petitions, maintaining that the accused had violated prohibitory orders issued by the Delhi Government and contributed to the risk of spreading a life-threatening disease during a national emergency. Relying on its status report, the police argued that the petitioners had allowed members of the Tablighi Jamaat congregation—who were found at the Nizamuddin Markaz on March 31, 2020—to reside in the premises of Masjid Sayyed Rafi, Chandni Mahal, and other similar locations. This, according to the police, constituted a clear breach of the Section 144 order dated March 31, 2020, and the GNCTD notification dated March 22, 2020, prohibiting gatherings and imposing social distancing norms.

The police contended that the petitioners’ actions were deliberate and reckless, as they permitted the assembly of individuals without adopting safety or hygiene measures. The state argued that such conduct undermined public health efforts at a time when the nation was grappling with a deadly pandemic. Further, it was claimed that the accused persons acted in concert and conspiracy, warranting charges under Section 120-B IPC for criminal conspiracy, along with provisions of Sections 188 (disobedience to order), 269 and 270 (negligent/malignant act likely to spread infection).

The police insisted that the plea for quashing was premature, as the allegations required adjudication during trial and that the High Court should not interfere with the ongoing criminal process at this stage.

Court’s Judgment and Analysis:

After reserving judgment on April 22, 2025, Justice Neena Bansal Krishna delivered a detailed ruling, allowing the petitions and quashing all 16 FIRs and the related chargesheets. The Court emphasized that the primary basis of criminal liability—intentional violation or willful disobedience—was missing in this case.

Key Observations:

• No Evidence of Religious Congregation:

The Court found that the FIRs did not allege any large-scale religious gatherings or social congregations at the premises where the petitioners were present. Merely providing shelter to individuals stranded during an unprecedented lockdown could not, in itself, attract criminal liability.

• Lack of Nexus to Spread of Infection:

Justice Krishna observed that the prosecution had failed to produce any evidence establishing a direct link between the petitioners’ actions and the spread of COVID-19. Criminal provisions like Sections 269 and 270 IPC require proof of a negligent or malignant act likely to spread infection, which was absent in this case.

• Humanitarian Context Ignored:

The Court underscored the extraordinary nature of the lockdown, which left many individuals, particularly those associated with the Tablighi Jamaat, stranded without shelter. In such circumstances, the act of providing accommodation was a humanitarian gesture rather than a criminal offense.

• Constitutional Principles:

The Court reiterated that criminal law should not be weaponized to penalize acts done in good faith during a crisis. Continuing with prosecution in the absence of credible evidence would amount to a violation of the petitioners’ fundamental right to life and liberty under Article 21.

• Abuse of Process:

The bench concluded that allowing the trial to proceed would serve no meaningful purpose and would instead result in undue harassment. Accordingly, the Court quashed all 16 FIRs and chargesheets, observing:

 “Chargesheets quashed. Continuation of proceedings in these cases would be unjust and contrary to the principles of fairness and equity.”

Implications of the Judgment:

The ruling reinforces the principle that criminal liability under pandemic-related restrictions must be based on concrete evidence of willful disobedience and public health endangerment, not mere association or presence. It also signals judicial recognition of humanitarian considerations during extraordinary circumstances like a nationwide lockdown.