COVID-19-Vaccines for lawyers, Judges: Bharat Biotech files transfer plea in Supreme Court, Delhi High Court adjourns PIL

The Delhi High Court today adjourned the case concerning the vaccination of Judges, lawyers and court-staff on being appraised that a transfer petition has been filed before the Supreme Court on the issue by one of the vaccine manufacturers, Bharat Biotech.

.[BREAKING] Weight in claim to declare judges, lawyers as frontline workers: Delhi High Court registers PIL for COVID-19 vaccination on priority. Appearing for Bharat Biotech, Senior Advocate Neeraj Kishan Kaul today told the Bench of Justices Vipin Sanghi and Rekha Palli that the Bombay High Court is also hearing a similar petition.

. Kaul submitted that Bharat Biotech has filed a transfer petition in the Supreme Court, seeking transfer of similar matters from various High Courts to the Supreme Court.

The transfer petition is due to be heard on March 15 and considering the pan India significance of the case, he urged the Delhi High Court to adjourn the matter.

. The submissions were supported by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta , who also informed the Court that the Centre has filed its counter-affidavit in the matter before the High Court.

. He reiterated the Centre's stance that COVID-19 vaccinations were presently being administered based on the factors of vulnerability or potential exposure to COVID-19 and co-morbidities.

. He added that such factors were rational, fundamental and guiding COVID-19 vaccinations across the world. The Centre's affidavit also detailed how the vaccines are manufactured and administered. It is not as if citizens in India are being deprived of vaccines while vaccines are being exported abroad, he argued.

.[Vaccination of lawyers] COVID-19 vaccination based on vulnerability; no sub-classification based upon profession: Centre tells Delhi High Court. On a related note, ASG Anil Singh also submitted before the Bombay High Court today that Bharat Biotech has filed an application before the Supreme Court to transfer all such matters to the top court.

. Objection to treating legal profession as "any other profession" . Senior Advocates Vikas Singh and Ramesh Gupta raised objections to the Centre's stance.

. Singh took objection to the Centre treating the legal profession as "any other profession", pointing out that lawyers are required to go through crowded court corridors and that their functioning is crucial to the functioning of the judiciary itself.

"This profession is important for the functioning of the judiciary", Singh argued.

. The Court also echoed the concern that courts are places involving congregations.

. "... Every day you see a new face, litigant coming. The rate of exposure is increasing, " Justice Vipin Sangi said.

. Gupta pointed out that the Centre has already demarcated certain other professionals such as municipal workers, revenue officials and armed force members as "frontline workers" eligible for the vaccine presently.

" Revenue staff are covered as frontline workers. They are sitting in offices, " Gupta pointed out.

. Mehta responded that revenue officials are also exposed to COVID-19 through their contact tracing functions. He argued that even within doctors, only those directly or potential exposed to COVID-19 are eligible for the vaccine. He added that the executive cannot and should not make classifications between professions.

. " Eventually, all people - their turn would come. We just started on February 1... priority is vulnerability sections, sections which have direct exposure to COVID-19 patients... These are reasonable classifications... Not for a second, I am suggesting that role of lawyers or judiciary is less," Mehta argued.

. Is India maximising its COVID-19 vaccine potential? . The Court today also expressed concern over whether India is maximising its potential in terms of vaccine administration.

. Pursuant to queries by the Bench, Advocate Hitesh Jain for the Serum Institute informed the Court that:

60 million doses are being made per month,

It has supplied 48 million doses to the Government,

51 million doses are allocated to the Union Ministry of Health for deliveries outside India.

. Senior Advocate Kaul submitted that there has been no excess, unutilised vaccine doses at Bharat Biotech. He added that efforts are on to scale up the production. However, he emphasised that this process is complex, capital and time-consuming. Therefore, it cannot be done overnight, he submitted.

. On making vaccination facilities available for vaccination of eligible lawyers and judges . As far as the the vaccination of lawyers, judges and court staff who are above 60 years of age or above 45 years of age with co-morbidities, advocate Rahul Mehra today appraised the Court of various measures put in place to enable the COVID-19 vaccination drive.

. Senior Advocate Rakesh Khanna also made submissions, urging creation of facilities to implement vaccination. The Court recorded that the Centre and the Government of Delhi may take an appropriate decision on the issue after discussing the matter.

. The matter would be heard again on March 19. In the meanwhile, the Court asked that all affidavits filed in the matter to be placed on record.

. Whereas Senior Advocate Singh urged the Court to direct the Central government not to export vaccines in the interim, the Court declined to pass such an order.

. " Let's not interfere, the government is responsible... although, Mr Mehta today's newspapers show that you are exporting to not so friendly countries," Justice Sanghi remarked.

. Mehta responded that he would not make any statement that would have a political colour. He urged the Court to form its opinion in the matter after reading the Centre's affidavit.

.Why restricted COVID-19 vaccination in India when vaccines are being donated, sold to foreign countries: Delhi High Court to Central govt

COVID-19-Vaccines for lawyers, Judges: Bharat Biotech files transfer plea in Supreme Court, Delhi High Court adjourns PIL

Meera Emmanuel

Related Stories