COVID-19 Pandemic: Suo Motu cognizance of various issues relating to COVID-19 – Unprecedented humanitarian crisis following outbreak of COVID-19 pandamic – Issues as regards distribution of essential supplies and services during pandemic – Issuance of directions, recommendations and questions to the Government as regards the medical infrastructure, national policy for admission to hospitals, oxygen allocation and availability, vaccines capacity and disbursal and vaccine pricing, potentiality of compulsory licensing for vaccines and essential drugs, supply of essential drugs, black marketing and augmentation of health care workforce – Direction to Union of India to ensure that the deficit in the supply of oxygen to the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi- GNCTD is rectified within the stipulated period – Direction to Central Government who would in collaboration with the States, prepare a buffer stock of oxygen for emergency purposes and decentralize its location – Direction to Central Government and State Governments that it would notify all Chief Secretaries/Police that any clampdown on information on social media or harassment caused to individuals seeking/delivering help on any platform would attract a coercive exercise of jurisdiction – Central Government to formulate a national policy on admissions to hospitals which would be followed by all State Governments, and till then no patient to be denied hospitalization or essential drugs in any State/UT for lack of local residential proof of that State/UT – Issuance of direction to Central Government to revisit its initiatives and protocols, including on the availability of oxygen, availability and pricing of vaccines, availability of essential drugs at affordable prices and on all the other issues – Judicial notice – Constitution of India.
Constitution of India: Art. 32 - Suo Motu writ petition – Unprecedented humanitarian crisis following outbreak of COVID19 pandamic – Dialogical role of the bench – Held: Jurisdiction assumed by this Court under Art. 32 did not automatically lead to the erosion of High Court’s jurisdiction under Article 226 Jurisdiction under Article 226 is important – High Courts may be better equipped to deal with issues within their own States – However, this Court assumed jurisdiction over issues in relation to COVID19 which traverse beyond state boundaries and affect the nation in its entirety – Jurisdiction exercised is merely to facilitate a dialogue of relevant stakeholders, the UOI, the States and this Court, in light of the pressing humanitarian crisis, and not with a view to usurp the role of the executive and the legislature – This boundeddeliberative approach is exercised so that the UOI and States can justify the rationale behind their policy approach which must be bound by the human rights framework u/Arts. 21 and 14. Suo Motu vs State of Gujarat Writ Petition (PIL) No 53 Of 2021; K.S. Puttaswamy (Privacy-9J.) vs Union of India (2017) 10 SCC 1: [2017] 10 SCR 569 – referred to.
Sandra Fredman, “Adjudication as Accountability: A Deliberative Approach” in Nicholas Bamforth and Peter Leyland (eds), Accountability in the Contemporary Constitution (Oxford University Press, 2013) ; Theodore O. Prosise, ‘The collective memory of the atomic bombings misrecognized as objective history: The case of the public opposition to the national air and space museum’s atom bomb exhibit’ - (1998) 62 Western Journal of Communication 3:316-347, pg 318 ; Bryan Hubbard and Marouf A. Hasian, ‘Atomic Memories of the “Enola Gay” : Strategies of Remembrance at the National Air and Space Museum’ (1998) 1 Rhetoric and Public Affairs 3:363-385, pg 364; Austin Sarat and Thomas R. Kearns, History, Memory, and the Law (University of Michigan Press, 2009) pgs 12-13; Nicole Maurantonio, “The Politics of Memory” in Kate Kenski and Kathleen Hall Jamieson (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Political Communication (Oxford University Press, 2014); Elena N. Naumova, ‘The traps of calling the public health response to COVID- 19 “an unexpected war against an invisible enemy” (2020) Journal of Public Health Policy (2020) 41:233-237, pg 233 – referred to.
Council for Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, Waiver From Certain Provisions Of The Trips Agreement For The Prevention, Containment And Treatment Of Covid-19, Communication From India And South Africa, IP/C/W/669, 2 nd October, 2020, available at https://docs.wto.org/dol2fe/Pages/SS/directdoc.aspx?filename=q:/IP/C/
W669.pdf&Open=True; COVID-19 IP Policy Tracker (WIPO, 16 July 2020), available at https://www.wipo.int/covid19-policy- tracker/#/covid19-policy-tracker/access;“Managing the COVID-19 infodemic: Promoting healthy behaviours and mitigating the harm from misinformation and disinformation - Joint statement by WHO, UN, UNICEF, UNDP, UNESCO, UNAIDS, ITU, UN Global Pulse, and IFRC” (WHO, 23 September 2020) available at <https://www.who.int/news/item/ 2309-2020- managing-the-covid-19-infodemic-promotinghealthy-behaviours- and-mitigating-the-harm-frommisinformation- and-disinformation>;“Social media & COVID-19: A global study of digital crisis interaction among Gen Z and Millennials” (WHO, 23 September 2020) available at <https://www.who.int/news-room/feature-stories/detail/social-media-covid-19-a- globalstudy-of-digital-crisis-interaction-among-gen-z-andmillennials>; Jonathan Freedland, ‘History suggests we may forget the pandemic sooner than we think (The Guardian, 29 January 2021) available at <https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/jan/29/history-forget- pandemic- spanish-flu-covid>; Luke Shors, ‘Waging Another Public Health “War?” (Think Global Health, 26 February 2020) available at <https://www.thinkglobalhealth.org/article/waging- anotherpublic-health-war> – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.