'Not In Public Interest' : Karnataka High Court Dismisses Plea To Stop COVID Vaccination Drive With Rs 50,000 Costs

A division bench of Chief Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Aravidn Kumar held that the petition is not in public interest and it imposed a cost of Rs 50,000 to be paid by the second and third petitioners, with the Chief Minister's Relief Fund within a period of one month from today.

Advocate Nitin appearing for the petitioner submitted that permitting use of vaccine without completing clinical trials is in violation of rules. The components of the vaccine fall under the category of Gene Therapy product and thus the guidelines issued by the Government of India, have to be followed. In short he submitted that administration of Covaxin and Covishield to members of the public is harmful and illegal.

During the hearing the bench reminded the counsel that "If we grant this prayer and people will get infected will you take responsibility? It added "This is a disservice you are doing, the petitioner should be dismissed with heavy cost." It even asked the petitioner whether he would like to withdraw it. To which the counsel informed the court that he had instruction to go ahead with it.

In its order the bench noted "At the outset we must note that this court is dealing with various issues arising out of 1st and 2nd wave of Covid-19. This court has dealt with the issue of the Right of Migrants. Food security, non availability of oxygen etc. However, Litigants and members of the bar are filing multiple petitions dealing with the same issues."

The court also recorded that the vaccine drive commenced in January 2021. Petitioner's counsel is not disputing that more than 18 crore doses have been administered throughout the country. The present petition is filed as late as May 24.

Accordingly it said "The very fact that now it is prayed for stopping vaccines, it shows that it is not in public interest. Hence we decline to entertain the petn on the ground that it is not filed in public interest. This is a fit case to impose cost."

It added "This is a fit case to award exemplary cost as the hearing of the petn has consumed 45 minutes which could have been devoted to many other serious matters like non availability of oxygen, food security, etc." It concluded by saying "Considering that the first petitioner is an army officer, we direct the 2nd and 3rd petitioner to pay a cost of Rs 50,000."