COVID-19 pandemic:
Suo Motu writ petition – Cognizance of the Management of the Covid -19 pandemic during the second wave –Gradual recession of the second wave – In view thereof, issues as regards Central Government’s Liberalised Vaccination Policy, vaccine distribution, vaccine procurement process, and the augmentation of vaccine availability, taken up – With respect to the vaccine distribution between different age-groups, the policy of the Central Government conducting free vaccinations for persons above age of 45 years and frontline/healthcare workers, and paid vaccinations by the State/UT Governments and private hospitals for persons between 18-44 years, prima facie arbitrary and irrational – With regard to procurement process, the Liberalised Vaccination Policy, may not be able to yield the desired results, and the basis of pro rata allocation to State Governments also not clear, thus, Central Government to specify as to how they would deal with the concern – As regards augmentation of vaccine production/availability, Union of India to undertake a fresh review of its vaccination policy – In view thereof, issuance of direction to Union of India to file affidavit addressing the issues with regard to the vaccination policy: vaccine procurement and distribution among different categories of the population, effects of vaccination by private hospitals under the liberalized vaccination policy, basis and impact of differential pricing, vaccine logistics, digital divide – Affidavit to provide information on the percentage of population that has been vaccinated with one dose and both doses; complete data on purchase of COVID-19 vaccines till date (Covaxin, Covishield and Sputnik V), and an outline for vaccinating the remaining population in phases 1, 2 and 3; and the steps taken by the Central Government to ensure availability of drug for mucormycosis – Further, direction to Union of India to attach copies of relevant papers and file notations perused while preparing vaccination policy – Also, the State/UT governments to clarify their position and policies as regards providing free vaccination to the population within their territories.
Judicial review – Exercise of, over the management of the COVID-19 pandemic – Held: Policy-making continues to be in the sole domain of the executive – However, separation of powers does not result in courts lacking jurisdiction in conducting a judicial review of these policies – Constitution does not envisage courts to be silent spectators when constitutional rights of citizens are infringed by executive policies – Judicial review and soliciting constitutional justification for policies formulated by the executive is an essential function, which the courts are entrusted to perform – Judiciary has also recognized that constitutional scrutiny is transformed during such public health emergencies – In grappling with the second wave of the pandemic, this Court does not intend to second-guess the wisdom of the executive – However, it continues to exercise jurisdiction to determine if the chosen policy measure conforms to the standards of reasonableness, militates against manifest arbitrariness and protects the right to life of all persons – Court is presently assuming a dialogic jurisdiction – Hence, the Court would, under the auspices of an open court judicial process, conduct deliberations with the executive where justifications for existing policies would be elicited and evaluated to assess whether they survive constitutional scrutiny.
Union of India vs Rakesh Malhotra and another SLP (Civil) (Diary) No 11622 of 2021; DDA v. Joint Action Committee (2008) 2 SCC 672 : [2007] 13 SCR 811; Gujarat Mazdoor Sabha v. State of Gujarat AIR 2020 SC 4601 – referred to.
Jacobson v. Massachusetts 197 U.S. 11 (1905); Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn, New York v. Cuomo, 592 U.S., 141 S. Ct. 63; Calvary Chapel Dayton Valley v. Steve Sisolak, Governor of Nevada, et al, 140 S.Ct. 2603 – 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) – referred to.
< h t t p s : / / w w w. m o h f w. g o v. i n / p d f /GuidancedocCOWIN2.pdf>; <https://pib.gov.in/
PressReleseDetail.aspx?PRID=1701549>; <https://pib.gov.in/PressReleseDetail.aspx?PRID=1712710>; <h t t p s : / / w ww. moh f w.g o v.i n / p d f /LiberalisedPricingandAcceleratedNationalCovid19VaccinationStrategy 2042021.pdf.;
<https://www.pib.gov.in/
PressReleasePage.aspx?PRID=1721225\;<https://
www.indiabudget.gov.in/doc/Budget_Speech.pdf>; <http://mospi.nic.in/sites/default/files/publication_reports/R e p o r t _ 5 8 5 _ 7 5 t h _ ro u n d _ E d u c a t i o n _ f i n a l _ 1 5 07_0.pdf; <https://www.trai.gov.in/sites/default/files/Wireless_Data_Service_Report_21082019_0.pdf>;
<https://csc.gov.in/assets/events-report/Annual-Report2019-20.pdf> - 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.