The Supreme Court today rejected the plea filed by the Youth Bar Association seeking door-to-door Covid-19 vaccination policy for those who are either old or physically disabled and a toll free 24/7 helpline for the same.

The bench of Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Hima Kohli observed that it is difficult to issue general directions over a plea when conditions are varying in different parts of the country; furthermore the plea is not even based on thorough research.

Babli Singh, the Counsel for the petitioner, stated the third wave is right around the corner; however the bench had altogether a different opinion and didn’t let the petitioner argue observing that such pleas are filed disregarding the diversity of the country. The bench allowed the petitioner to address concerns with the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare.

‘Lack of understanding about the diversity of the country’

“Do the same conditions prevail in Ladakh and Kerala, or Uttar Pradesh? Are challenges the same in urban parts of India and the rural areas? There is a lack of understanding about the diversity of the country, about the complexity of governance… Nobody has applied their mind to see whether it is feasible or not… When you ask for this sort of relief you need to see the complexity of this country. You haven’t talked about Delhi. With one stroke of brush, a petition for the entire country is filed. Vaccination has begun, over 60 percent of the population have been administered with 1st dose… A petition can’t be filed by casual nature. It has to be researched thoroughly,”

the bench observed.

Also Read: Supreme Court issues notice on Centre’s plea against appointment of Arbitrator by Calcutta High Court

The bench further observed that directions have already been given in the suo motu petition, there is a committee to look into the diverse issue of Covid and a national task force was also formed, it is the responsibility of the State and the court should not impinge upon the administrative power of the State to describe procedure to administer vaccination. 

The plea along with seeking a general order to the Union to begin door-to-door vaccination also sought directions for the government to frame a Standard Operating Procedure for administration of door-to-door vaccines and a 24X7 portal for the purpose of this type of vaccination.

The Youth Bar Association has moved the Supreme Court, seeking direction from the court to direct the Government to take appropriate measures for providing door-to-door COVID-19 vaccination of all the citizens residing in India, specially the senior citizens, differently-abled, less privileged, weaker sections and those, who are not capable of doing their online registration for vaccination.

The petitioner, an association of spirited, young and vigilant lawyers of India, have filed various PILs in concern with the public at large.

Advocate Manju Jetley and Advocate Saranjeet stated that door-to-door COVID-19 vaccination of all citizens residing in the country would minimise the risk for getting infected and is the NEED OF HOUR, particularly for those, who are not capable of doing their online registration for the vaccine, irrespective of the reason.

The Petitioner Association suggested that vaccination should muster on the principle of ‘We are as strong as our weakest link’. The Association further submitted that India is a welfare state, which believes in accepting its liability towards securing public welfare and to sub-serve the interest of all its citizens.

The Government of India had announced “the Liberalised Pricing and Accelerated COVID-19 Vaccination Strategy” about Phase III of its vaccination strategy, which included citizens within the age limit of 18-45, and in addition to demographic representation of administration of vaccine by frontline workers and citizens above the age of 45 years.

The plea stated, “as the COVID-19 cases are surging abruptly, the vaccine is not a choice, but a necessity for survival. The Central Government had issued “Universal Immunisation Plan and National Vaccine strategy, which raised a legitimate expectation that the vaccine would be procured by the Centre and distributed down the chain to public free of cost and universally in a gradual phased manner”.

In the second wave of COVID-19, the concerned Petitioner Association stated, “COVID-19 vaccine is a life-saving drug and the same shall be included in the National list of Essential Medicines.

“The PAN India shall be directed to create a 24 X 7 toll free portal booth where the economically backward class, individuals who are oppressed by society, i.e. the transgender and sex workers, underprivilege sections of the society, differently abled people, who are unable to approach the vaccine centre due to reason of their age or medical disability may register themselves for vaccination and awareness shall be created among the people through advertisements, pictorial hoardings and resolving the queries through the toll free number.”

The Petitioner Association also prayed that vaccine booth, mobile vans, and vehicles should be allotted for the vaccination of differently-abled, oppressed and living in remote areas of the country and also efforts shall be made that lack of identity must not cause hinderance in the process for the people, who are backward and under-privileged.

Read Also: Supreme Court quashes ex-judicial officer’s plea in sexual harassment case against him

The Petitioner Association also prayed to issue either e-guidelines or formulate a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP), so as to give immediate effect to the functioning of Door-to-Door vaccination to incapable people at free of cost and to direct the government to have toll free 24X7 portal, through which the incapable and under-privileged people may register themselves and which may resolve their queries and doubt in their regional language. The matter will soon be listed soon before the Supreme Court.

New Delhi (ILNS): The Youth Bar Association (YBA) of India has approached the Supreme Court with a suggestion that alternate and pre-litigation processes be made mandatory to avoid adding to the huge pendency already existing in courts across the country. The YBA says that the use of alternate dispute resolution mechanisms will help control frivolous and vexatious matters coming up for litigation by affording an opportunity to parties to come together and settle their disputes amicably before any litigation can commence.

The Supreme Court bench of Chief Justice S.A. Bobde, Justice AS Bopanna, and Justice V. Ramasubramanian today issued notice.

Highlighting the purpose of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR), governed by the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and the Civil procedure Code, 1908 particularly section 89 of CPC, the petitioner has submitted that “with the introduction of these provisions, a mandatory duty has been cast on the civil courts to endeavor for settlement of disputes relegating the parties to an ADR process.

“The object of the introduction of Section 89 was to ensure that Courts make an endeavor to facilitate out-of-court settlement through any of the five ADR methods as referred to in Section 89: (a) Arbitration, (b) Conciliation, (c) Judicial settlement, (d) Settlement through Lok Adalat, and (e) Mediation.”

Referring to a 2013 judgment of the Supreme Court in K. Srinivas Rao vs D.A. Deepa, in which the Supreme Court had directed to set up pan India mediation centers in order to settle matrimonial disputes at the pre-litigation stage where only 3 High Courts complied with the directions, the petitioner has prayed for institutionalized pre-litigation mediation model for  Youth Bar Association of India.

-India Legal Bureau