The Non-Observance of Human Rights During the Covid-19 Pandemic
-Nishank Tikku

Introduction
The COVID-19 Pandemic is considered the largest and one of the most significant health emergencies in modern human history. It prompted new change in the old and outdated systems and frameworks set by governing authorities related to human wellbeing and health. Meaning the states had to adopt new administrative and legal systems to contain the deadly virus which at the time was spreading like wildfire all throughout the world. While international human rights law allows for temporary restrictions on certain rights during public emergencies, they must still adhere to certain principles of legality, necessity and proportionality. However, what really happened was that the pandemic revealed the underbelly of these sort of provisions which caused defiance of Human Rights become widespread throughout different societies. Many governments relied on underhanded, overboard and poorly planned responses to the emergency which not only worsened the situation in some cases but deepened the already existing social and economic divide amongst the people. Rather than finding the balance between public health and human rights, most governments violated fundamental civil, political and societal rights. This essay aims to highlight the impact of COVID-19 on human rights with emphasis of the burden and discrimination faced by weaker and more vulnerable groups of society.

Freedom to Movement and Personal Liberty
One of the most visibly affected rights was the freedom of movement and personal liberty. Restrictions due to lockdown were imposed globally to try and limit the spread of the virus; yet in many cases these restrictions were poorly planned and very abrupt. In India, the nationwide lockdown which was announced in March of 2020 was implemented with only a few hours of notice. Millions of internal daily wage workers and migrants were left without any help, with no access to shelter, food, transport or employment. They were forced to undertake long journeys by foot. This caused a lot of deaths due to starvation, exhaustion, road accidents and no availability of medical care. This enforcement of restriction on movement raised concerns regarding personal liberty. Reports of arbitrary arrest, prolonged detentions and unlawful use of excessive force against migrants and people trying to reach their homes or villages. While later the government introduced some aids to help the affected people, most people being affected were not able to utilize them due to improper documentation and proof of identity. These outcomes demonstrated how restrictions, even if they appear to be neutral or helpful, can become unfair or disproportionate when implemented in a rush with no proper planning.
Freedom of Expression and Access to Information
Multiple human rights organizations documented how several governments throughout the world used the excuse of public-health to suppress criticism and hide the ill-effects of their policies. Journalists, civilians and activists alike were arrested or prosecuted by the state under the guise of “spreading fake news” and disinformation laws for criticizing state responses or if they highlighted the unavailability of daily essential resources. This made people question what information was really being received by them and started a sense of insecurity related to any news being released. Many adopted measures that exceeded permissible limitations, resulting in suppression and reduced transparency caused the erosion of public trust in the government. Social media became the primary method of spreading information to the masses; however, it made spreading misinformation even easier. States pressured prominent social media platform to filter and remove content that was deemed misleading, usually without any proper standard or oversight. This revealed how restrictions on this freedom not only affected trust in the government but also directly affected the health of the citizens.

Legal Analysis
During the COVID-19 pandemic, state-imposed restrictions on the freedom of movement and personal liberty and freedom of expression exceeded what would be considered a permissible limit. According to human rights laws, these freedoms can only be limited when they are lawful, necessary and proportionate. However, in practice, due to a very abrupt and poorly planned lockdown, it revealed the true nature of these limitations. The migrant workers who were left without transport to their villages and homes with no access to food or shelter felt first-hand the deprivation of the liberty to move. The enforcement of these laws, often by methods such as beating and arbitrary arrests, further undermined their personal liberty and stripped them of their dignity. Along with that, governments often relied on vague “false news” laws and regulations to suppress criticisms related to public management, which created a feeling of distrust amongst the public towards the government, as the government was censoring vital information. These restrictions were neither necessary nor proportionate. Public scrutiny and transparent information availability for the public at that time were crucial to ensure public wellbeing. Together, this illustrates how governments during any form of emergency often prioritized executive control over these rights, which led to violating them as per the legal standard.

Conclusion
In conclusion, the COVID-19 pandemic revealed the underbelly of the government’s emergency planning and significant shortcomings in the protection of fundamental human rights. While legal frameworks permit these restrictions during time of crisis to safeguard public health, the pandemic exposed how many states failed to adhere to its principles of legality, necessity and proportionality. Abrupt lockdowns and absence of procedural safeguards resulted in the development of disproportionate effects faced by marginalized and economically vulnerable parts of society. At the same time, the suppression of any form of criticism and lack of transparency undermined the freedom of expression and access to information, weakening governmental accountability and overall reducing the trust of the public towards the government. The non-observance of these rights during a time of crisis illustrates how emergency power, when exercised without any legal restraint or check, can remove the rule of law and human dignity. It brought to light how trying to safeguard an executive power undermines the purpose of trying to safeguard the people. The pandemic underscores the necessity of rights-based emergency governance that balances public health and wellbeing with constitutional and international legal obligations, ensuring that even in times of emergency, fundamental rights and freedom remain protected.