State settles covid19 lockdown birthday party case

THE State has agreed to settle the constitutional claim of an Indian classical singer, primarily based in New York, who claimed police brutality for having a private birthday party at his family’s home in Williamsville during covid19 lockdown in May 2020.

On July 9, Justice Margaret Mohammed approved the consent order between the parties in which the State agreed to compensate Shiv Lakhan a total of $120,000 as well as costs.

The judge also approved the declarations that Lakhan’s constitutional rights to the enjoyment of his property, not to be deprived of it except by due process of law and respect for his private and family life were breached by the police’s actions.

In his constitutional claim, Lakhan challenged the Government’s coronavirus regulations imposed during the covid19 pandemic.

His lawsuit said on May 29, 2020, during a nationwide lockdown, he invited friends and family to his parents’ home for his sister’s birthday party. In all, there were nine people, which included his parents and himself.

The claim said four policemen showed up at the front gate and he told the officers, one of whom he knew, he was having a small get-together.

The lawsuit said the officer became aggressive and demanded his guests leave the house, insisting it was illegal for a gathering of more than five people in breach of “congregation laws.”

Lakhan complied and told his guests to leave. He claimed the officers were violent, aggressive and intimidating with their big guns and were shouting at everyone. The claim said three officers entered the premises and violently grabbed him by his hands and pants, dragging him to the street. The incident was captured on private CCTV footage which was presented as evidence in support of his case.

His lawsuit also alleged that the officers were possibly intoxicated because of the high smell of alcohol.

The claim said Lakhan was unaware of what “covid law” or “congregation law” the police were referring to since as far as he was aware, the regulations imposed at the time were only applicable to gatherings in a public place.

Lakhan’s lawsuit contends the actions of the police were without legal justification, illegal, arbitrary, excessive and unlawful use of force.

It also said the officers’ actions purported to be under the public health regulations were misguided, without legal basis, illegal, unlawful and unconstitutional.

In its defence, the police claimed there were 20 people at the premises, either drinking alcohol, eating or dancing.

One of the officers claimed Lakhan was visibly intoxicated, approached them by the gate and began shouting at them to leave, while alleging telling the officers,” Allyuh cyar tell me nothing…I does live in the States, I know my rights.”

The officer said two people at the gathering were warned about close gatherings during the pandemic and agreed to leave when Lakhan allegedly again became loud and was warned about his conduct. The officer said when Lakhan began to calm down, he decided that a stern warning was the best course of action to take and left after warning him about the dangers of the pandemic.

Lakhan was represented by Anand Ramlogan, SC, Ganesh Saroop, and Jared Jagroo.

The State was represented by Rishi Dass, SC, and Raphael Ajodhia.