Justifying the ban on door-to-door delivery of newspapers during the lockdown, the State government on Thursday told the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court that as per experts, the novel coronavirus stays on surfaces for a long time, and newspapers are passed on from one hand to another, increasing the chances of spread of the infection.
The government said its decision prohibiting delivery — now in force only in COVID-19 hotspots and containment zones —was an exceptional policy move and in no way violates the freedom of the press.
The State, in an affidavit filed before Justice N.W. Sambre, said newspapers are not an essential item and hence prohibition on its doorstep distribution cannot be said to be infringing upon any fundamental rights.
The affidavit, filed by Nagpur Collector Ravindra Thakare on behalf of the State, was responding to a petition filed by the Maharashtra Union of Working Journalists and the Nagpur Union of Working Journalists, challenging a government circular issued on April 18.
The circular said while newspapers can be sold at stalls, their door-to-door distribution by vendors cannot be permitted at this stage.
The government clarified that a blanket ban on door-to-door delivery of newspapers has been lifted and now the prohibition is limited only to Mumbai, Pune and containment zones in other districts.
According to experts, the novel coronavirus can stay on various surfaces for a considerable amount of time and the newspaper is something that will be passed on hand to hand, which may increase the chances of the infection spreading, the affidavit said.
Newspapers cannot be considered an essential need unlike food items. Citizens can still get e-papersfor daily reading. “Hence, prohibition of door-to-door distribution of newspapers by no means infringes upon the right of the freedom of the press,” it said.
It added that there are several areas or districts that are now coronavirus-free or where the prevalence of the virus is negligible. The circulation of a non-essential item printed elsewhere in these coronavirus-free areas may lead to resurgence of the infection, the affidavit said.
The government said this was an exceptional policy decision taken under an extraordinary situation. The intentions are in the interest of the citizens to ensure their well-being and safety. “These are judicious, fair, and transparent and are neither arbitrary nor permanent in nature,” it said.
Justice Sambre took note of the affidavit and posted the matter for further hearing on June 15.