Typically, a lockdown ban is often the first response against an emergency. However, these older devices are generally of limited utility for suppression, and if installed suppressively, or are too awkward, can be eradicated. However, in Indian law, lockdown often refers to both types of interventions, along with limiting travel. Isolation and quarantine may be voluntary or imposed by law. Within the country, lockdown orders have traditionally come from states.

The court has generally upheld the orders of the broad powers of the states for the protection of the public interest at large. Nevertheless, courts sometimes intervene when the lockdown was inappropriate or when officials failed to follow the necessary procedures.

For example, prior to 1978, Article 352 of the Constitution originally give the unrestricted powers relating to lockdown to Union and the state government under three grounds- war, external aggression and internal disturbance, the object of lockout or proclamation from three grounds.

The Emergency was free from judicial review in all cases, which was criticized by many jurists, who were later turned into internal disturbances by the Janata Party government in 1978 and armed rebellion in the 44th Amendment Act, 1978.

Many scholars and legal jurists have concluded that lockdowns are constitutional only when the government can show clear and compelling evidence that they are the least restrictive means of protecting the public at large. However, many experts reviewed the challenges of lockdown, claiming that most of the time, the standards are not sufficiently well established to allow claims to be pursued.

Those detained, or whose freedom is otherwise restricted, are entitled to judicial review - traditionally under captive disclosure. Finally, when governments lock people in, they should meet the basic needs of those people to ensure access to health care, medicine, food and sanitation.

Such standards are not only constitutionally coercive and necessary: they are important to ensure that detained individuals obey orders, such as limiting geographic areas - can raise serious constitutional questions.

It is time to recognize that the lockdown alone cannot handle any emergency but may create havoc. In a public administration, we need to argue that more creative means are needed in space and time - as important as that. To facilitate this step, people should be allowed to transport wherever possible to do so. But many low-wage and gig workers cannot afford to stay at home. Nor can they handle the economic impact of the lockdown.

The government should also reduce the barriers and protect the rural citizens, farmers, labourers from the consequences of adverse lockouts. Finally, emergency guidance or regulations should be issued keeping in mind new, more creative tools. With this, the time has come to implement and implement new lockdown laws that emphasize support rather than restriction.