[Vaccination of lawyers] COVID-19 vaccination based on vulnerability; no sub-classification based upon profession: Centre tells Delhi High Court

The Central government has told the Delhi High Court that its present policy of restricted COVID-19 vaccination is based upon the vulnerability of the citizenry to the infection either on account of the nature of their work or their age or any co-morbid situation (Court on its own motion vs UOI - vaccination of members of judicial fraternity)..The Central government added that decision is purely executive in nature and in the larger interest of the nation, which may not be the subject matter of judicial review..“Vaccination is the topmost priority of Government of India and all efforts are being made to achieve an objective of 100 per cent vaccination in the shortest-time possible keeping the available resources in mind and availability of vaccine doses into consideration,” the affidavit said. .Till the 49th day of vaccination i.e March 6, 2.1 crore people have already been vaccinated, the Court was informed. .The submissions were made by the Central government on affidavit following the High Court's order to explain the rationale behind allowing vaccinations only for persons who are above 60 years of age or are above 45 years with co-morbidities..Why restricted COVID-19 vaccination in India when vaccines are being donated, sold to foreign countries: Delhi High Court to Central govt.The Centre maintained that "step-wise layered approach" was the advisable criteria suggested by WHO. .“This strategy aims to achieve the immediate two-fold public health objectives to protect the healthcare & pandemic response system & to minimize mortality. Such prioritization in India is being done by NEGVAC in the Indian context and guidance recived from WHO from tome to time.”.The Centre also told the Court the Central Drugs Standard Control Organization granted permission to two COVID-19 vaccines on “restricted use in emergency situation” basis, and the same does not entail market authorization for open sale in commercial market..In view of the limited number of manufacturers, globally and in India, there has been a need for the prioritization of beneficiaries, it was explained. .As far as the issue of export of vaccines is concerned, the Central government said that the export of COVID-19 vaccine facilitates a "global action" which is important to break the chain of transmission.."Once the epidemic takes the form of a pandemic, its management has to be done keeping the entire globe as unit and in most circumstances, it is not possible to take either State-specific or country-specific approach..”, it was stated..Only allowed only limited export of vaccines while according highest priority to domestic needs, the government underscored. .“Low/middle-income countries as well as nations with limited access to pharmaceutical technologies are at debilitating disadvantages in dealing with the pandemic," the affidavit said. .Insofar as the issue of vaccination of lawyers in concerned, the Central government has said that those who are not eligible at the moment, would be covered in due course of time..“..the term ‘frontline workers’ is used only for those citizens who are required to be directly exposed to the COVID infected patients. Thus, it may not be appropriate to discriminate them as against a separate class of lawyers as both are doing their respective duties towards the citizens under similar circumstances.. it may not be in the larger interest of the nation that the government starts sub-classification either based upon the profession, trade, business or any other ground at least at this juncture.”.Earlier this month, the High Court had registered a suo motu PIL case concerning COVID-19 vaccination of judges, court staff and lawyers on priority..The Court had observed that prima facie, there was weight in the claim made by the Bar Council of Delhi for declaring all persons associated with the judicial functioning, which includes the Judges, the Court Staff and the lawyers as frontline workers..The matter would be heard on March 10.