Dissenters cannot dictate formulation of policy by government: Supreme Court | India News – Times of India

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Friday said it would always disagree with any government policy from one quarter onwards, but “opponents cannot direct policy-making” even though it asked the petitioner to serve a copy of the petition for investigation. Vaccine-related death to Solicitor General Tushar Mehta for an unofficial response
The observation came from a PIL filed by Ajay Kumar Gupta from a bench of Justices DY Chandrachur and AS Bopanna seeking an inquiry into all post-vaccination deaths, which he claimed more than 9,000 times since the vaccination against Kovid began in India. He noted that the government’s adverse effects following immunization (AEFI) policy have removed active monitoring of the health of vaccinated individuals for timely medical intervention to save lives.
Appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Senior Advocate Colin Gonsalves stated that grassroots health workers should be involved in following up with vaccinated individuals to avoid any serious consequences of adverse events following the 2015 AEFI policy vaccination. However, the AEFI policy has been revised to provide covid vaccine to rural health workers, such as Anganwadi workers, in hopes of testing AEFI conditions for vaccination in rural areas, he said.
Gonsalves said the government keeps post-vaccination death statistics to a very low level where actual figures show more than 9,000 such deaths. “A lot of doctors are asking why this is not being done, why the policy was changed and blaming government policy,” he said.
The bench said, “There will always be differences of opinion regarding any kind of policy formulated by the government. This does not mean that dissidents will make policy decisions. The decision to vaccinate every Indian against covid is in line with WHO guidelines.
“We are well on our way to that and the process of vaccinating the entire population is at a critical stage. We do not want to stop this process,” the bench said. Gonsalves’ perseverance was denied and the bench asked him to serve a copy of the petition to the SG for an informal response from the Center during the next hearing on 13 December.
Tika and Kovid have been the subject of choice for many PIL petitioners before the SC in the last one and a half years. During the lockdown of the first wave of the epidemic, the SC jumped from providing food to migrant workers to waive interest on loans, to ensure adequate oxygen supply to Delhi during the second wave, and to keep the community kitchens open for workers. Get two meals a day.
On August 9, a bench headed by Justice LN Rao sought response from the Center on a petition filed by Jacob Pulial, who sought Vaccine trial data as well as post-vaccine AEFI data from Prashant Bhushan. However, the bench said that the notice issued was not to send any signal against the policy of universal vaccination against Kovid.
On Sept. 8, a bench headed by Justice Chandrachud refused to give the authorities a general order for house-to-house vaccination, saying it was “not possible.” The petitioner told the Youth Bar Association – “With one brush you want an order for the whole country. The vaccination drive is already underway and more than 60 percent of the population has been given the first dose.” Citing the issue as a matter of policy and governance, the bench refused to investigate the repeal of the existing policy.


Read More World News

Keep Reading Latest Breaking News

Source link

Leave a Comment