High Court Chhattisgarh HC strongly objects to reservation in COVID vaccination

Chhattisgarh HC strongly objects to reservation in COVID vaccination


Raipur, May 5 (ILNS) The Chhattisgarh High Court has strongly objected to the implementation of reservation in COVID-19 vaccination.

A PIL was registered suo motu by the Division Bench of Chief Justice PR Ramachandra Menon and Justice Parth Prateem Sahu because of various interlocutory applications with different prayers with regard to the conditions in Jails amid the COVID-19 pandemic and also in respect of some Orders/Circulars issued by the Governmental authorities, whereby the benefit of ‘third phase’ vaccination (for the age group of above 18 years and
below 45 years) has been restricted, making a sub-classification without any power or competence for the State Government in this regard and contrary to the norms/guidelines issued by the Central Government in terms of the guidelines fixed by the World Health Organisation (WHO).

One of the PIL also challenged the Order/Circular dated April 30, 2021 issued by the Additional Chief Secretary, Government of Chhattisgarh, Health and Family Welfare Department,
stating that the third phase vaccination will be given firstly to the Antyodaya Card
Holders – poorest among the poor, secondly to the people belonging to the
group ‘Below Poverty Line’ and thirdly to the people belonging to the ‘Above
Poverty Line’.

Ramakant Mishra, Assistant Solicitor General for the Union of
India, submitted that as per the vaccination policy, out of the total vaccines
manufactured in India by Serum Institute of India –
Covishield and Bharat Biotech – Covaxin, 50 percent of the same has to be given to the
Central Government and 50 percent has to be made available to the State Government.
It is stated that the vaccine is free to the persons coming within the first phase and
second phase, whereas in respect of third phase, it will be against payment. It is
stated that the Central Government has set the State Government and the private
Hospitals at liberty to purchase the vaccines in the third phase directly from the
manufacturers against the price fixed by them.

It is further stated that the supply is
being effected to various States based on the relevant parameters as contained in
the policy guidelines, adding that the demand/supply ratio is also having a bearing
in this regard; more so being connected with the production/manufacturing
capacity of the two manufacturers.

Satish Chandra Verma, Advocate General for the state, informed the Court that since only limited quantity of
vaccines are available for the third phase of vaccination, a sub-classification was
felt necessary, particularly since the Antyodaya Group who are residing mostly in the remote areas and who are rather illiterate or not knowing anything much about
the COVID-19 pandemic, symptoms, complications, necessity to register in the
portal and as to the infrastructure, are moving around quite freely, which may spread
the disease much faster. Case is almost similar in the case of Below Poverty Line
group as well and hence, there is a rationale in the sub-classification of persons in
the age group of 18 to 44.

The Bench held that when the registration can be effected by the other people who can
afford by sitting at home, the poor people as may have
to go to the nearest centers provided by the State to avail the facility. But by the
time they reach there, the portal may be closed or the bookings/registration may
be stopped having obtained saturation, virtually making it detrimental to the right
and interest of the children of the lesser God. This being the position, if any steps
are taken by the State Government to have the benefit extended to such people
as well, the object cannot be doubted. But, such step has necessarily to be in
conformity with the constitutional mandate and in tune with the guidelines issued
by the Central Government at the national level.

The Bench noted that “the ‘priority’ was fixed by the Central Government as
per the guidelines/policy already declared. By virtue of the data gathered under
the first wave, the ‘frontline workers’ like the Doctors, Nurses and other ‘Corona
Warriors’ who were having direct contact with the patients have been rightly
included in the top priority group. The next phase was for persons above 60 years
and for persons with co-morbidities. The cut off age of 60 was subsequently
reduced to 45, may be on the basis of subsequent data input. Now, under the
third phase stage (for the persons between the age of 18 to 44) no distinction is
made and as per the policy all such persons have been treated as a common lot.
But, after commencement of the second wave, the disease is spreading like ‘wild
fire’, without any reference to the age factor and quite a lot of ‘young and healthy’
people have surrendered to the same. “

“Coming back to the sustainability of the impugned order and the need to
protect the poor, illiterate and less fortunate citizens, a Scheme has to be
formulated by the State by earmarking appropriate share of the vaccines to them as well and set up ‘Help Desks’ providing spot registration and to administer
vaccines to them, without compromising the right of the other segments who are
entitled to have equal treatment with regard to the right to life.”, the Court said.

The Court is of the view that “the
State Government shall fix a reasonable ratio of allotment of vaccines to the ‘Antyodaya Group’, the persons belonging to the ‘Below Poverty Line’ and the
persons belonging to the ‘Above Poverty Line’, with reference to all the relevant aspects including the vulnerability, chance to spread the disease and the number of eligible persons in the group”.

It was directed by the Court that the State Government to have a discussion of the Secretaries of the relevant Departments at the higher level and to fix the ratio as above and distribute the vaccines in the third phase of
vaccination (for the age group of above 18 and below 45 years) in an equitable manner. Matter is fixed for May 7 for further hearing. ILNS/SHV/RJ


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

Latest news

SC pulls up UPSC, Jharkhand PSC for violating DGP appointment rules

The Supreme Court has directed the Union Public Service Commission and the Jharkhand Public Service Commission to...

SC reverses Tribunal Reforms Ordinance on age limit of lawyers as Tribunal members

New Delhi, Jul 15 (ILNS) The Supreme Court has reversed the provisions made to the Finance Act,...

SC issues notice on plea challenging Section 124A of Indian Penal Code

New Delhi, Jul 15 (ILNS) The Supreme Court today issued notice on a petition challenging the constitutional...

Rotary and Tata Trusts to collaborate in Cancer care, Covid care, Nutrition, Rural Uplift Livelihoods, to supplement efforts towards strengthening the nation

New Delhi, July 14 (ILNS) The Tata Trusts and Rotary today announced a five-year collaboration to scale...

Bar Council of Delhi distributed more than Rs 19 crore to lawyers during lockdown: BCD Chairman Ramesh Gupta

New Delhi, Jul 14 (ILNS) The Bar Council of Delhi is reaching out to the lawyers, who...

NGT flays Haryana over sewage overflow on National Highway-19

New Delhi, Jul 14 (ILNS) The National Green Tribunal has pulled up the state of Haryana over...

Must read

You might also likeRELATED
Recommended to you