On March 18, the apex court stayed proceedings in the Delhi High Court regarding giving priority to the legal fraternity for administering the Covid-19 vaccine and favoured transferring the suo motu case to itself for adjudication.
A bench of Chief Justice SA Bobde and Justices AS Bopanna and V Ramasubramanian asked the centre to consider the request of lawyers for priority in vaccination as their livelihood depended on contact with people and their apprehension of getting the infection was genuine.
The Court was hearing petitions filed by the two firms seeking transfer of the pending cases related to Covid-19 vaccination in various High Courts to the Supreme Court and a PIL seeking priority in vaccination of lawyers and judges.
It was stated by the Court that journalists’ work can be done without coming in contact with people, unlike lawyers whose livelihood depends on direct interaction with their clients. “Their meeting people is connected to their livelihood. Advocates can earn money only when they can come in contact with people. And they want to be protected. What we want to know if you have any reservation in hearing the advocates on this point,” said the bench.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the centre, argued “that the vaccination for those above 60 years of age, and those between 45 and 59 with 20 identified diseases, was based on their vulnerability and a rational criterion of averting mortality, I don’t belong to any of these classes and hence, I am also not vaccinated. I am from the same fraternity. But how can a 30-year-old lawyer be put on par with a vegetable vendor sitting in a market who has to go through the same hustle-bustle and meet far greater number of people to earn his livelihood? Tomorrow, journalists may also make the same demand based on their meeting a large number of people.”
The bench said: “We don’t know exactly how journalists go about their business but what we do know is that journalists’ work can be done even without coming in contact with people unlike lawyers.” It added: “We have no doubt India is leading into the vaccination drive and it is doing a great job. And the government has distinguished itself by supplying vaccines to other countries as well. We are not casting any aspersion on anyone. We are asking you that those, who must in order to earn their livelihood meet people, are asking if their claims can be considered or not. This is a genuine concern on behalf of the advocates.”
Senior advocates Harish Salve and Mukul Rohatgi appeared for the transfer petitions on behalf of Serum Institute of India and Bharat Biotech. They sought that suo motu proceedings before the Delhi High Court be stayed as it would lead to problems if every High Court in the country began its own exercise of deciding who should be defined as frontline workers and be vaccinated on a priority basis.
On March 15, the central government opposed a PIL in the Supreme Court seeking prioritisation of judges, lawyers and judicial staff in Covid-19 vaccine administration and said that “it may not be desirable to create a separate class consisting of judges, lawyers, and court staff below the age of 45 for administering the COVID-19 vaccine on a priority basis”. An affidavit filed by Manohar Agnani, Additional Secretary, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare was read out.
The government said that from the facts, it is clear that the classification of citizens was based on the most rational and non-arbitrary criteria and thus any specific classification, either based on the nature of trade, profession or otherwise, is neither possible nor advisable. The affidavit further said that the vaccination was the topmost priority of the government and all efforts were being made to achieve the objective of 100% vaccination in the shortest time possible keeping the available resources in mind and availability of vaccine doses.
The centre filed the affidavit in response to a PIL filed by one Arvind Singh seeking the inclusion of judges, lawyers and court staff in the priority list for vaccination. On March 10, the centre told the Delhi High Court that the decision to vaccinate people against coronavirus was based on vulnerability of citizens to the infection and was not profession-wise.
On March 4, the Delhi High Court had asked the centre to explain the rationale behind keeping strict control over the class of persons who can be vaccinated against Covid-19 currently as those above 60 years or with comorbidities can receive vaccination.
On March 17, a bench of Chief Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice GS Kulkarni of the Bombay High Court had said that some decisions were best left to the “executive’s wisdom”. The bench was not pleased with the plea filed by Mumbai-based lawyers Vaishnavi Gholave and Yogesh Morbale who had sought that lawyers and judges be vaccinated first as they had worked through the pandemic. The Court, however, stated that other frontline workers like sanitation workers and staff of several private organisations had also worked during this phase. The Court said it was rather “selfish” of the petitioners to seek vaccination on priority for the judiciary. “Have you seen the movie ”Titanic”? Do you recollect captain of ship? He has to wait till others are evacuated. First everyone gets it and then judiciary. I am the captain here,” Chief Justice Datta said. The Court also urged the ASG and other lawyers to suggest that those working under the legal services authority be considered for the vaccine first, as and when vaccination is opened for the judiciary.
Moreover, the Delhi High Court on March 19 refused to further hear a PIL to declare all people associated with the judicial functioning as “frontline workers” to enable them to get the vaccination on priority in view of the Supreme Court’s order staying the proceedings. A bench of Justices Vipin Sanghi and Rekha Palli adjourned sine-die the hearing in the PIL which was initiated by the High Court on its own. During the brief hearing, the central government standing counsel, Anil Soni, informed the High Court that in the seven district courts here, the facility of vaccination for lawyers, who are eligible for it as per the policy, had started.
It is to be noted that the Supreme Court Bar Association(SCBA) had written to Union Law Minister Ravi Shankar Prasad in January this year, seeking the inclusion of the legal fraternity among the category of “frontline workers” for the vaccine. The letter requests that judges, judicial staff and members of the legal fraternity be included in the category of frontline workers “so that appropriate remedial measures are taken to prioritise and extend this vaccination program to this class of our citizenry”.
Senior lawyer and SCBA President Vikas Singh was the first person to get vaccinated in the presence of Senior most Supreme Court judge Justice NV Ramana in the programme held in the apex court premises on March 16. SCBA Secretary Ardhendumauli Kumar Prasad requested member lawyers and their families to cooperate and follow the Covid-19 protocol during the vaccination process.
In this context, Lucknow-based advocate Pradeep Kumar Gupta told India Legal: “The Supreme Court, High Courts and lower courts are places where there is movement of people on a large scale. People take enough care, but still if there is any lack, it is the moral responsibility of the government to give proper vaccination (on a priority basis) to judges, lawyers and court staff. Advocates remain in direct touch with the client and court and staff members have to work so that justice is delivered.”
Read Also: Fresh sale of electoral bonds: Supreme Court reserves order
Advocate Shailesh Tripathi told India Legal: “The government should provide vaccination to the judiciary as early as possible as they have to deal with a wide range of people, starting from offenders. They physically touch and read the papers of accused, bail documents and people coming from different cities. These papers and files may be infected with the coronavirus. Medical and post-mortem reports and compulsory medical examination, all of which originate from hospitals, could make court officials more prone to infection. Files and documents from jails often pass from hand to hand, carrying a high chance of infection. The top court should pass an order directing states to have these categories of people vaccinated earlier.”
However, Ved Prakash Sharma, a Lucknow-based journalist, said: “We have worked during the lockdown by keeping our lives on our palm so that we can reach news to the general public. Some reporters even went inside Covid-19 wards and reported under the protocol. The media is considered the fourth pillar. Therefore, the government should give priority to them for vaccination.”
If other professions too start demanding priority in vaccination, the government will have a tough job on its hands.
By Shivam Sharma and India Legal Bureau