Judicial Policy for The Covid-19 Pandemic in Comparative Legal Perspective.

The right to health and equity is the paramount concern of the State, especially in times of epidemic and pandemic. The nationwide lockdown and COVID-19 has witnessed a series of judicial inte3rvention in health right and equity. Although there is a settled jurisprudence concerning health right and entitlement, the current streak of judicial innovation represents a novel discourse in the understanding of the public health administration and governance in India. An inquiry into the judicial policy of the epidemic-pandemic in the comparative jurisdiction seems fascinating in deepening our understanding of the state expediency and citizens liberty. The precedents in Gibbons v. Ogden, Louisiana State Board of Health Case, Jew Ho v. Williamson and Wong Wai v. Williamson deepens the understanding of the public health administration and governance. The rulings of Indian Supreme Court in Alakh Alok Srivastava v. Union of India, Shashank Deo Sudhi v. Union of India, suo motu cognizance of COVID-19 Testing and Sachin Jain v. Union of India also open a new vista of health right and justice in India. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]