'Is Campus Law Centre Not Keeping You Busy?' Delhi High Court Refuses To Entertain Student's PIL For Door-to-Door Vaccination
story
Hearing a final year law student of Campus Law Centre, New Delhi who approached court seeking door-to-door Covid-19 vaccination, the Delhi High Court asked the student if his institution was not keeping him busy enough, when the petitioner was unable to present the court with data on the issue as enquired during the hearing.The court said, "It seems Campus Law Centre is not keeping you...
Your free access to Live Law has expired
Please Subscribe for unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments, Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.
Hearing a final year law student of Campus Law Centre, New Delhi who approached court seeking door-to-door Covid-19 vaccination, the Delhi High Court asked the student if his institution was not keeping him busy enough, when the petitioner was unable to present the court with data on the issue as enquired during the hearing.
The court said, "It seems Campus Law Centre is not keeping you busy, without going through the whole facts, you have filed a PIL?"
The matter was listed before the Division Bench of Justices Vipin Sanghi and Rekha Palli, however was heard by Justices Rajiv Sahai Endlaw and Amit Bansal in the former bench's absence.
The petition filed by one Mrigank Mishra had sought door-to-door Covid-19 vaccination to ensure rapid immunization of the masses, however, the court expressed its displeasure and concern when the petitioner failed to give replies to its satisfaction on questions about the availability of the number of vaccines at the vaccination centres across the capital and the number of beneficiaries at each centre per day.
To the court's query, counsel for the petitioner, Adv Ashish Mohan, had informed the bench that there were nearly 400 beneficiaries every day in each centre with about a 100 beneficiaries every session and 4 sessions per day. However, there was no specific answer given about the number of vaccines available at the centres.
Besides the above, the court also expressed concern over home vaccination citing medical advice for access to medical facilities at the centres in case of emergencies.
Justice Endlaw said, "Infact my doctor has told me that it's better to take the vaccine at a medical facility, which will have facilities in case of emergency."
When the counsel for the petitioner did not retreat, the court asked him, "What does his father do? How much costs can he pay?" - warning that the petition would be dismissed with costs.
The court then recorded in its order that it was of the prima facie of the view that it did not have the wherewithal to decide upon such questions which actually require analysis of various factors.
Observing the lack of answers available with the petitioner, the court said, "This shows the shallowness of the petition and that it has been filed for publicity rather than out of a serious intent."
Pleading that these observations may be problematic for the student in future, his counsel withdrew the petition.