Decision To Include Persons Engaged In Justice Delivery System In COVID Vaccine Priority Group Must Be Left To Govt's Wisdom: Tripura High Court

The Bench of Chief Justice Akil Kureshi and Justice S. G. Chattopadhyay was hearing the plea of a Law student who sought the Court's directions to the State Government to include Judges, judicial staff, lawyers and the clerks of the advocates as frontline workers for the purpose of giving priority in administering Corona vaccines.

Stressing that the Judges, lawyers, and support staff of the courts and lawyers are engaged in dispensing justice, the Petitioner, therefore, submitted that the said group of citizens may be granted priority in Vaccination.

Further, submitting that a similar issue is pending before the Supreme Court, the Petitioner contended that in the State of Tripura, the number of persons who would qualify for such preferential distribution of vaccines would be very small and of these, fewer people may opt for taking the vaccines.

Thus, it was prayed that the Government may be directed to provide COVID-19 vaccines to the said group of persons on a priority basis.

Court's observations

At the outset, the Court observed that the Supreme Court would give its final view after hearing all sides and considering all relevant aspects of the matter.

Further, the Court opined that it isn't inclined to issue the directions as prayed for as it observed that mere small number of eligible persons who may opt for the vacancies in the State on the priority cannot be the sole consideration.

Also, the Court perused the Government of India policy for the rollout of the vaccine in a phased manner which clearly sets out the Phase wise vaccination policy of the Government wherein and observed that the policy statement issued by the Government of India has been issued after due deliberations.

Significantly, the Court opined,

"When the task of covering the almost entire population of the country in excess of 130 crores is to be undertaken by the administration and for which detailed policy formulations have taken place, any interference even in the form of a suggestion by the Court must be to the minimum and at any rate, not without full material being placed before the Court and after dispassionate and mature thinking."

Further, the Court took judicial notice of the fact that the rollout of the COVID vaccine has been going on for quite some time, and virtually all qualified and willing members of categories 1 and 2 i.e. Health Care Workers and Front Line Workers have been covered.

"COVID vaccine is now made available to the prioritized age group of the population over a certain age and those who may be below the cut-off age but who may have co-morbid conditions. At such a stage, we are most reluctant to interject and insist that an additional category may be recognized for the purpose of priority distribution of vaccines", the Court further added.

Turning to the medical aspects attached to the issue, the Court opined that the Government agencies must be trusted to have due regard to the difficulties of this group.

Regarding the issue of managing the Courts during difficult times of spread of Corona, the High Court clarified that it has been taking policy decisions, formulating appropriate policies, and issuing necessary directives from time to time.

The Court also remarked,

"We are sure, on the later aspect of managing the Courts during Corona times, the High Court of Tripura will continue to closely monitor the situation and issue appropriate directives from time to time."

Lastly, noting that the situation is not right for issuing the directions as prayed by the petitioner, the Court said,

"However, so far as the former aspect of covering the persons engaged in the justice delivery system on a priority basis, the same must be left to the wisdom of the Central Government."

It may be noted that the Delhi High Court had taken suo moto cognizance of the demand for recognition of judges, lawyers, court staff as 'frontline warriors' for the purpose of priority in giving COVID vaccines.

The High Court has sought for affidavits from SII and Bharat Biotech on their capacities. In response to this, the drug companies approached the Supreme Court.

However, last week, the Bombay High Court took a contrasting approach with respect to a similar plea.

A division bench headed by Chief Justice Dipankar Dutta of Bombay High Court asked why should legal fraternity be regarded as frontline workers.

Further, in a significant development, the Supreme Court today restrained the Delhi High Court from proceeding with the suo moto case taken by it to consider including legal fraternity in the priority list for COVID-19 vaccination.

A bench headed by the Chief Justice of India issued notices on the petitions filed by vaccine manufactures Bharat Biotech Ltd and Serum Institute of India seeking to transfer to the top court the case in the Delhi High Court seeking vaccination priority for legal fraternity.

Significantly, the Central Government has informed the Supreme Court that it may not be desirable to create a separate class consisting of lawyers and others below 45 years of age and discriminating persons engaged in other trade, profession or business and working under similar geographic conditions and circumstances.

The Government through its affidavit by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare has submitted before the Court that it is not in larger interest of the nation that the Government starts sub-classification based on profession, trade, or any other ground at this juncture.

Case title - Tanjim Ahmed v. Union of India and Ors. [WP(C)(PIL) No.1/2021]

Click here To Download the Order

Read Order