Dismissing four petitions challenging the collection of fine in cars when the drivers were found without a mask, the Delhi high court said it is mandatory to wear a mask in a private car even when the driver is alone in the car, as a vehicle is considered a public place. The high court said a mask acts as Suraksha Kavach, which would prevent the spread of the deadly virus.

Which of the following can be hypothesized from the above statement?

(I) People will follow the rules to wear mask even they are alone in car.
(II) Awareness among people will be spread as court has termed “Suraksha Kavach” to mask.
(III) Less car will be seen on the roads of Delhi after verdict of High Court.

To determine which of the statements can be hypothesized from the Delhi High Court's ruling, let us analyze the context and the logical implications of the statements step-by-step:

1. Analysis of Statement (I): "People will follow the rules to wear mask even they are alone in car."
When a high court passes a mandatory ruling, it does so with the expectation that citizens will comply with the law. Therefore, it is a reasonable hypothesis that people will obey the mandate and wear masks even when driving alone to avoid getting fined or violating the law. Thus, Statement (I) is a valid hypothesis.

2. Analysis of Statement (II): "Awareness among people will be spread as court has termed “Suraksha Kavach” to mask."
The court specifically highlighted the mask's role as a "Suraksha Kavach" (protective shield) to prevent the spread of the deadly virus. Pronouncements by a High Court receive significant public attention and media coverage. Using a strong metaphor like "Suraksha Kavach" emphasizes the protective value of masks, which will logically raise public awareness about their importance. Thus, Statement (II) is also a valid hypothesis.

3. Analysis of Statement (III): "Less car will be seen on the roads of Delhi after verdict of High Court."
The requirement to wear a mask inside a private car is a safety and regulatory measure, not a ban on driving or vehicle ownership. It is highly unlikely that drivers will stop using their cars altogether just to avoid wearing a mask. Therefore, assuming that car traffic will decrease significantly because of this verdict is an extreme and logically unsupported leap. Thus, Statement (III) cannot be hypothesized.

Since only statements (I) and (II) can be logically hypothesized from the given passage, the correct option is "Only I and II".