oppn parties Supreme Court Slams 'Liberalized' Vaccination Policy

News Snippets

  • 2nd ODI: Rohit Sharma roars back to form with a scintillating ton as India beat England by 4 wickets in a high scoring match in Cuttack
  • Supreme Court will appoint an observer for the mayoral poll in Chandigarh
  • Government makes it compulsory for plastic carry bag makers to put a QR or barcode with their details on such bags
  • GBS outbreak in Pune leaves 73 ill with 14 on ventilator. GBS is a rare but treatable autoimmune disease
  • Madhya Pradesh government banned sale and consumption of liquor at 19 religious sites including Ujjain and Chitrakoot
  • Odisha emerges at the top in the fiscal health report of states while Haryana is at the bottom
  • JSW Steel net profit takes a massive hit of 70% in Q3
  • Tatas buy 60% stake in Pegatron, the contractor making iPhone's in India
  • Stocks return to negative zone - Sensex sheds 329 points to 76190 and Nifty loses 113 points to 23092
  • Bumrah, Jadeja and Yashasvi Jaiswal make the ICC Test team of the year even as no Indian found a place in the ODI squad
  • India take on England in the second T20 today at Chennai. They lead the 5-match series 1-0
  • Ravindra Jadeja excels in Ranji Trophy, takes 12 wickets in the match as Saurashtra beat Delhi by 10 wickets. All other Team India stars disappoint in the national tournament
  • Madhya Pradesh HC says collectors must not apply NSA "under political pressure and without application of mind"
  • Oxfam charged by CBI over violation of FCRA
  • Indian students in the US have started quitting part-time jobs (which are not legally allowed as per visa rules) over fears of deportation
Manipur Chief Minister Biren Singh resigns after meeting Home Minister Amit Shah and BJP chief J P Nadda /////// President's Rule likely in Manipur
oppn parties
Supreme Court Slams 'Liberalized' Vaccination Policy

By Sunil Garodia
First publised on 2021-06-02 15:15:25

About the Author

Sunil Garodia Editor-in-Chief of indiacommentary.com. Current Affairs analyst and political commentator.

The Supreme Court has slammed the government's vaccination policy for 18-45 year-olds. It has called the decisions "prima facie arbitrary and irrational" .

The court also rejected the government charge that the judiciary should steer clear of intervening in executive decisions. It was of the view that the judiciary cannot be a silent spectator if the constitutional rights of citizens are violated due to executive policy. The people have the right to seek redress from the judiciary and the courts will do so as per law.

The court also wanted to know from the government the comparative pricing for vaccines in India and the rest of the world. It was especially inquisitive about the use of Rs 35000 crore set aside for vaccination and asked the government to place on record the complete details (dates of orders placed, quantity ordered and projected dates of supply) of vaccine procurement and supply. It also asked the government to place on record the projected roadmap of availability of vaccines till December 31 2021.

Asking the question "if Rs 35,000 crore has been allocated for vaccine, why it cannot be used for vaccinating the 18-44 age group" the court went on to say that "due to the importance of vaccinating individuals in the 18-44 age group, the policy of the Central Government for conducting free vaccination themselves for groups under the first 2 phases, and replacing it with paid vaccination by the State/UT Governments and private hospitals for the persons between 18-44 years is, prima facie, arbitrary and irrational".

Under the garb of 'liberalized' vaccine policy, the government had let vaccine manufacturers charge differently from the Centre, the states and private hospitals and had asked 18-45 year-olds to pay for getting jabbed. It was reported that people in India were paying a lot more for vaccination than in other countries. The government has also not disclosed how it will spend the Rs 35000 crore earmarked for vaccination. Hence, the top courts intervention is timely. The case will be heard again on June 30 by which time the government is expected to come up with the answers to the questions posed by the bench.