The COVID-19 pandemic has severely affected the right to life and personal liberty granted to the citizens of the country through article 21 of the Constitution. In order to ensure that the nation is safe, secure and healthy, and that the number of cases gradually stop rising, the State has imposed a nation-wide lockdown. The lockdown restricts the movement of the people from one place to another, since they can be potential carriers of the virus, thereby infecting others who may come into their contact. Moreover, the State also enacted the provisions of the Disaster Management Act and the Epidemic Disease Act, to make the imposition of the lockdown much more convenient. 

However, even with the lockdown imposed, there were certain incidents that were brought into light which showcased its breach such as the Tablighi Jamaat incident and the Mumbai protest incident. As a result of this, there were a huge number of people who were infected with the virus and were thus isolated in the quarantine centres. However in the recent case of Mustak Hussain & Anr. v. State of Haryana & Ors., there was a writ petition filed by the petitioners who challenged such isolation, by filing a writ of Habeas Corpus under article 226 of the Constitution. 

The petitioners sought to enact this writ with the intention of proving that such isolation in quarantine centres could be considered as illegal confinement. 

Illegal confinement basically entails forcing a person to stay put in one specific area, or restricting their movement from one place to another without their consent. 

In the given case, the petitioners were respectively from Assam and Bihar, but were quarantined by the authorities of Haryana in the Mewat Model School in Hathin, along with several other Bangladeshi residents, who were present in a Mosque in Palwal. The petitioner and these people along with them were booked by the Police authorities under the Epidemic Disease Act, the Foreigners Act, the Disaster Management Act and the Indian Penal Code. 

The petitioners argued that they tested negative for the virus, and therefore could be let free to go back to their respective places, but were illegally confined in the quarantine centre in Hathin. The respondents put forward the contention of public health, and argued in the court stating that although the petitioners tested negative, the authorities consulted the reports with the medical personnels, and also since no transport facilities were available to send them back, it was not considered advisable to let the petitioners free. Moreover, they could still be potential carriers of the virus since the containment zone in which they were present was declared as red zone and hence there was a high risk attached to the situation. 

The Punjab and Haryana High Court invoked the Disaster Management Act and the Epidemic Disease Act and stated that since the isolation of the petitioners in the quarantine centre was considered in view of the overall public health, it could not be considered as an illegal confinement.