The Maharashtra Government was a pioneer in tackling the Covid-19 situation during the second wave, the Bombay High Court observed while disposing of two PILs filed during the pandemic. The bench of Chief Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice M S Karnik further observed that Maharashtra is one of the few states where physical court hearings have started and expressed hope for the coming...
The Maharashtra Government was a pioneer in tackling the Covid-19 situation during the second wave, the Bombay High Court observed while disposing of two PILs filed during the pandemic.
The bench of Chief Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice M S Karnik further observed that Maharashtra is one of the few states where physical court hearings have started and expressed hope for the coming year.
"We don't want a repeat of April 2021.. those dark days. We let our guard down. But we have no hesitation in saying Maharashtra was a pioneer in tackling the situation of Covid in Maharashtra."
"We are told that several courts in some states are still not open (for physical hearings). Our collective efforts have succeeded," the bench added.
The court disposed of petitions filed by Yogita Vanzara, and Siddharth Chandrashekhar, which highlighted the practical difficulties citizens face in getting vaccinated by registration on the CoWin portal and took up the cause victims of fake vaccines.
Advocate Jamshed Master and Advocate Rajesh Vanzara urged the court to allow guidelines passed in the PILs to remain in force. However, the Additional Solicitor General said the centre was doing whatever was required.
In its order, the bench said that "concerns expressed in these two PIL petitions have been adequately addressed," and left it open for the Union of India as well as the Municipal Corporation whether to act in furtherance of the interim orders passed on the PIL petitions or not.
"We have no manner of doubt in our mind that the interim orders having been passed in the interest of the general public, discontinuance of any action taken in terms thereof, if at all, would be based on genuine and valid reasons," the bench observed.