'Would Lead To A Social Disaster': Centre Appeals Against Kerala HC Decision To Reduce Covishield Dose Interval Of 84 Days

The Centre has preferred an appeal before the Kerala High Court against a Single Bench order allowing the second dose of COVISHIELD to be administered prior to the prescribed interval of 84 days. 

The appeal has been filed through the Assistant Solicitor General of India P. Vijayakumar.

By the aforesaid judgment, the Single bench had directed the appellants to make necessary provisions forthwith in the CoWIN portal so as to enable scheduling of a second dose of COVISHIELD vaccine after four weeks of the first dose being administered for those who were willing to accept the same. 

The Centre in its appeal has alleged that by doing so, the Court has interfered with the Vaccine policy of the Government.

It was further pointed out that in its submissions before the Court in the said matter, the State had clarified that the interval between the two doses cannot be relaxed for the same reason.

"The judgment of the learned single judge would militate against the settled position that in the matters related to Government policy supported by scientific study, the Court shall not meddle with nor substitute its view with the view of the administration," the appeal reads. 

The appellant also contended that if such a precedent was allowed to stay, it would set at nought the national policy of for administration of vaccine and would cause serious prejudice for the larger segment. 

In its appeal, the Centre has asserted that it had filed a detailed statement explaining its vaccine policy and producing scientific and epidemiological evidence to support the same. 

It was further submitted that the interval of 84 days was fixed based on global best practices, expert opinion, and aligned with the regulatory provisions laid down by the Drug Controller General of India. 

The Central government also argued that the NTAGI examines the technical aspects of the National Covid-19 vaccination programme, such as the interval between the vaccine doses.

This body, which is the countries apex body on immunization, comprises technical experts like immunologists, vaccine and vaccine safety experts, paediatricians, gastroenterologists, public health experts, and regulatory authorities, the appellant submitted.

The point of such submission was to substantiate that it was the NTAGI that recommended the dose interval of 84 days upon discussing the same in a meeting with the Covid-19 Working Group. 

This recommendation was reviewed by several authorities and even the Union Ministry of Health and Family Welfare before it was executed, the Centre submitted. 

They have further stated that any change in such policy could only be carried out based on necessary approvals and clinical trials. Without the same, the impugned Order could potentially derail the vaccination policy throughout the country, the appellant argued. 

In the appeal, it has been contended that the Centre's arguments were not properly appreciated and that the Single bench had overlooked the National Vaccine Policy formulated by the Union while allowing the impugned writ petition.

It was also asserted that the Single Bench had allowed the petition on a miss appreciation of the relaxation offered to certain classes on valid consideration whereas the beneficiaries sought to be represented by the petitioners did not fall under the said categories.

The appellant also suggested that the decision of the Single Judge could have cascading adverse effects on the organised and regulated pattern of vaccine administration. 

Additionally, it was argued that the very approach of the Single Judge trying to adopt a comparison between an unrealistic notion of earlier protection and the realistic element of better protection was faulty and would lead to serious adverse consequences in the larger public interest.  

"Under the fanciful guise of earlier protection claimed by the petitioner, if a large quantity of vaccine doses are administered prematurely, the same would not only amount to inappropriate administration but also would affect the prospects of the remaining population waiting for their turn." 

The order allegedly evaluated the matter as an issue falling under Article 14 rather than from a scientific angle, and the appellants are anxious that this could result in a social disaster. 

Accordingly, they have moved the Court with an appeal, alleging the order of the Single bench to be illegal, erroneous, unjustifiable and unsustainable, and sought for it to be set aside in the interest of justice. 

Case Title: Secretary to Government of India Department of Health and Family Welfare v. Kitex Garments Limited & Ors