Sydney | An Australian court agreed on Wednesday to look into Canberra’s controversial decision to ban Australians from returning to the country from India, which is in the throes of a very serious outbreak.
A federal court has announced that it will urgently examine the appeal of a 73-year-old Australian who lives in Bangalore and wishes to return to Australia.
Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison this week banned all arrivals from India, a country which is currently registering hundreds of thousands of new infections every day.
Those who nevertheless return from India risk prison terms and heavy fines.
The ban sparked an uproar in Australia, including among allies of the head of government who denounced a racist move, and the abandonment abroad of Australians in vulnerable situations.
The Conservative government justified itself by saying that it was necessary to protect Australian quarantine facilities which otherwise risked being overwhelmed with positive coronavirus cases from India.
“He is a gentleman who wishes to return to Australia, but currently they are preventing his return,” said Christopher Ward, the lawyer for the septuagenarian, of his client.
Mr. Ward said the appeal called into question the legality of the ban, saying it was neither proportionate nor reasonable.
A next hearing will take place within 48 hours, Judge Stephen Burley announced.
Australia has contained the spread of COVID-19 on its soil rather well, in particular by means of drastic border control.
All of the recent outbreaks – very localized – have been linked to flaws in the quarantine facilities.
There are an estimated 9,000 Australians in India, including cricket stars playing for the now suspended Indian Premier League.
On Tuesday, Mr Morrison declined to reverse the ban, although he acknowledged that those who attempted to illegally return from India were unlikely to end up in jail.
The ban runs until May 15.
Luke Beck, professor of constitutional law at Monash University has deemed it unlikely that the septuagenarian will prevail in court.
“The Australian constitution does not grant many rights to individuals,” he told AFP, observing that there was notably no explicit right to return to Australia. He also observed that “judges tend to align themselves with what government experts say in public health.”