[COVID-19] Doubtful if "right to refuse" vaccine can be exercised when larger public health comes into play: Madras High Court

The Madras High Court on Wednesday expressed doubts as to whether a "right to refuse" the COVID-19 vaccine can be exercised, given that there are larger public health concerns involved and since unvaccinated persons may be asymptomatic carriers of COVID-19 (M Karpagam v. Commissionarate for the welfare of Differently-Abled and anr)..A Bench of Chief Justice Sanjib Banerjee and Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy made the observation in light of submissions made by the State's Advocate General R Shunmugasundaram about some persons with co-morbidities expressing reluctance to take the vaccine. .The submission was made during the hearing of a public interest litigation case concerning the vaccination of persons with disabilities, including those who are home bound and unable to travel. ."Indeed, vaccinating oneself may not only be to protect oneself but also in the larger interest of public health. When such larger interest of public health comes into play and it is possible that a person who has not taken the vaccine may not reveal any symptoms but still be a silent carrier, it is doubtful whether the right to refuse to take the vaccine can be exercised in such circumstances", the Court said..When such larger interest of public health comes into play, it is doubtful whether the right to refuse to take vaccine can be exercised in such circumstances"Madras High Court.The Court also urged the State to carry out campaigns to disseminate scientific information indicating the efficacy of the COVID-19 vaccine and the indispensable nature of the same in dealing with the pandemic..The Court further raised concern that the State has not indicated its plan for vaccinating home bound persons with disabilities, who do not have resources to travel. In view of the same, the Court expressed hope that all persons with disabilities, irrespective of status and resources, are taken care of by the State in due course..The case will be heard next after four weeks, considering that "the vaccine drive in the State has begun in right earnest, though a larger supplies of vaccines are awaited." .The Court also took on record a report filed by the Health Department in the matter on June 29. .Homeless should be considered for urgent vaccination since they are more exposed to COVID-19: Court.The Court today also urged the State authorities to take steps to prioritise the vaccination of homeless persons, the destitute, pavement dwellers and other such vulnerable sections, given that they are more exposed to the COVID-19 virus. .The authorities part of the Social Welfare and Nutritious Meal Programme Department, Tamil Nadu was urged to ensure that no such person is left out in the vaccination drive. .Further, all Corporations, Municipalities and Town Panchayats should be sensitised by the Department so that such persons are regarded as candidates for immediate, urgent vaccination since they stand exposed than other citizens to contract the virus.."A, it is our duty to protect them. B, if they are not protected or vaccinated, they could be spreaders," Chief Justice Banerjee observed during the hearing. .Having issued these directions, and after taking on record a status report filed by the State in the matter, the Court proceeded to dispose of a 2018 PIL which concerned the welfare of homeless persons and pavement dwellers. The matter had been listed today so that directions may be issued for the vaccination of such persons. .By its status report, the State had submitted that functional shelters have been set up to take case of homeless persons for whom the petitioner sought vaccination. .It was also highlighted that there is a national urban livelihood mission dubbed the "Deen Dayal Upadhyaya Antyodaya Yojana" which has been implemented in 664 urban local bodies. ."It is also apparent that the State has a programme to ensure that all such vulnerable persons are vaccinated as expeditiously as possible," the Court recorded further before disposing of the plea. .[Read Order]