New Delhi:
The Delhi High Court today harshly criticized the Delhi government for its change in the limit on the number of wedding attendees allowed in the wake of a new wave of the COVID-19 pandemic hitting the city.
“You (the Delhi government) saw since November 1 which way the wind was blowing. But now you are turning to a turtle because we asked you some questions. The bell should have rung loud and clear when the numbers were spiraling. Why He didn’t wake up when Did you see that the situation was deteriorating? “asked the court, according to a PTI report.
“Why did we have to pull you out of your sleep on November 11? What did you do from November 1 to 11? Why did you wait 18 days (until November 18) to make a decision? Do you know how many lives were lost during this period? Can you explain it to those who lost their loved ones and close ones ?, asked the bench.
The Delhi government on Tuesday reduced the number of people allowed at weddings from 200 to 50 amid a surge in coronavirus cases. This decision annulled a previous one, applicable from November 1, to ease the 50-person limit on wedding functions that was declared a few months ago.
Delhi recorded 7,486 new COVID-19 cases on Wednesday, with 131 deaths, the highest deaths during a 24-hour period so far in the city. The total number of cases in Delhi now stands at 5,03,084, with 42,458 active. So far, 7,943 people have died from the disease, putting the death rate at 1.58%, while the recovery rate is 89.9%. The national capital has witnessed an outbreak of cases since the end of last month when, on October 28, the daily number of new cases exceeded 5,000 for the first time.
Earlier this month, the state government had declared that a third wave of COVID-19 was sweeping through the city. On November 11, the daily figure surpassed 8,000.
Taking note of the situation, the High Court today noted that the amount of the fine for not wearing masks and not maintaining social distancing (500 rupees for the first offense and 1000 rupees for each subsequent offense) did not appear to act as a deterrent, according to a PTI.
.
