Supreme Cout Leaves DCPCR Suggestions On COVID Vaccination For Pregnant, Lactating Women For Centre's Consideration
story
Leaving it open to the Union of India to take a considered view after evaluating the suggestions as regards making a software adjustment to the COWIN portal to allow pregnant women and lactating mothers to identify as such, for their targeted tracking post immunisation, and for publication of results of relevant studies, the Supreme Court on Tuesday dispose off the petition by the DCPCR...
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.
Leaving it open to the Union of India to take a considered view after evaluating the suggestions as regards making a software adjustment to the COWIN portal to allow pregnant women and lactating mothers to identify as such, for their targeted tracking post immunisation, and for publication of results of relevant studies, the Supreme Court on Tuesday dispose off the petition by the DCPCR raising the issue of COVID vaccination for pregnant and lactating women.
The bench of Justices D. Y. Chandrachud and Sanjiv Khanna recorded that these proceedings under Article 32 of the Constitution have been instituted by the Delhi Commission for Protection of Child Rights, and that the specific reliefs which have been sought concern the need to provide effective access to pregnant women and lactating mothers to vaccination. The bench recorded that these reliefs can broadly be summarised as follows:
1. categorisation of pregnant women and lactating mothers as belonging to the high-risk category so as to be given priority in vaccination; 2. their inclusion in the vaccination drives and the setting up of a task force to operationalise an SOP for monitoring of their health post vaccination; 3. developing education materials and SOPs for women belonging to this group to understand the effects of vaccination and ensure informed consent; 4. creation of a registry for vaccination of lactating and pregnant mothers to provide for constant monitoring of their health; 5. setting out separate vaccination centres for them to Prevent any untoward infection; 6. engaging Anganwadi workers as a method of outreach particularly to women belonging to lower socio-economic backgrounds; 7. providing an option on the COWIN portal so as to allow pregnant and lactating mothers to classify and identify themselves so as to be given priority by providing slots for vaccination
"Initially, a preliminary affidavit was filed by the union of India by the additional commissioner in the Ministry of health and family welfare...Another affidavit has been filed on 13 January 2022 which particularly dealt with AEFI (Adverse Effects Following Immunisation) and for the mechanism for identification of pregnant women and lactating mothers. We have heard advocate Vrinda Grover for the petitioners and ASG Aishwarya Bhati. There has been an intervention application by Mr Nilesh Ojha, a member of the bar. During the course of her submissions, Ms Grover has submitted that the affidavits which have been filed by the Union of India would substantially resolve the concerns which have been raised in the petition and as a matter of fact, DCPCR which has instituted these proceedings had done so with the object of ensuring that vaccination for pregnant women and lactating mothers is taken up on a priority. The decision to facilitate vaccination for pregnant women was brought into being in July 2021 and the decision for lactating mothers was taken earlier in May, 2021 by the government, guided by all experts", recorded the bench.
The bench further noted that Senior Advocate Vrinda Grover, appearing for the DCPCR, has highlighted three concerns which according to the petitioner remain and may be addressed by the government at the suitable level: firstly, it has been submitted that the framework for vaccination of pregnant women and lactating mothers is based on a voluntary verbal declaration made by the person concerned who seeks vaccination at the time of vaccination. In this context, it has been submitted that the woman who visits the vaccination centre may not necessarily be aware of the need to make such a declaration and in the event that she is not duly informed by the personnel at the vaccination Centre, the recording of status either as a pregnant woman or a lactating mother meant to be incorporated in the dataset may not happen. Hence it has been submitted that if the COWIN portal at the time of registration could be suitably modified to incorporate a declaration, This would facilitate the entire process, especially the subsequent monitoring of the health of the vaccinated mother or woman as the case maybe.
The bench recorded that secondly, it has been suggested that in order to further support the surveillance which has been instituted by the government of monitoring AEFI, targeted tracking of pregnant women and lactating mothers can be considered so as to further bolster the process of monitoring.
The bench noted that thirdly, it has been emphasised that when adequate data sets become available, the publication of the data will enhance the confidence in the process of vaccination.
The bench recorded in its order that the ASG, while responding to the above suggestions, submitted that each of the three suggestions has been carefully evaluated by the expert groups of the union government.
"She submits that while in the ongoing process where decisions are being continuously evolved, the government has certain concerns over implementing the suggestions at the present stage but is open to further deliberation with the expert bodies which exist at the present point of time. On the first aspect in particular, it has been submitted that with the process of walk-in registration, the registration on COWIN portal has been rendered of subsidiary importance. However it has been submitted that the reason why it was believed that a verbal declaration at the time of vaccination would suffice was to ensure that no person is dissuaded from seeking vaccination by introducing an additional column at the time of registration", noted the bench.
"On targeted tracking, it has been submitted that a robust mechanism has already been put into place by the Union government. As regards the publication of the data, it has been submitted at this stage, any such a proposal may be premature but the Union Government is seized of the issue. Moreover, it has been submitted that the publication of the raw data may not be appropriate and the data is being published after due scrutiny and assessment by the expert agencies", noted the bench.
The bench observed that it is conscious that the suggestions which have been made on behalf of the petitioner raise issues of policy.
"We are nonetheless of the view that since the suggestions have emanated from the statutory body, they can be considered with the same sense of cooperation as has pervaded the entire process of the hearing of the present petition", added the bench.
"The three suggestions which have been made by the petitioners would undoubtedly involve an application of my mind and domain knowledge by experts in the area. The court may not be in the best position to take a decision unaided by an expert determination. We are of the view that having regard to the inclination which has been shown by the Union Government, it would be appropriate if the three ideas which have been outlined earlier are duly placed before the concerned expert groups as set out in the affidavit of the Union Government so that the suggestions can be factored in at a policy-making level at an appropriate stage. We appreciate the steps of the DCPCR in moving these proceedings and equally the sense of responsibility with which suggestions have been made and discussed both in the DCPCR and the union government. Leaving it open to the Union of India to take a considered view after evaluating the suggestions, we dispose off the petition", finally stated the bench.
Case Title: Delhi Commission for Protection of Child Rights v. Union of India and Anr.