Isn't Govt Responsible To Redress Citizen's Loss Of Job Due To Non-Recognition Of COVAXIN By Foreign Nations? Kerala High Court Asks Centre

The Kerala High Court on Tuesday questioned the government if it is not duty bound to redress the grievance of a citizen who may lose his livelihood due to a state-sponsored vaccination scheme. The query was posed in light of non-recognition of Covaxin by some countries.

Earlier this month, the World Health Organization (WHO) had approved Covaxin, a COVID-19 vaccine developed by Indian pharmaceutical company Bharat Biotech, for emergency use.

However, according to the petitioner, represented by Advocate Manas P. Hameed, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia has not approved the vaccine yet and this stand was hindering him from returning to the Kingdom for his employment.

Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan repeated his stand that the Government was accountable to the concerns of the petitioner:

"This Court cannot say that a booster shot of Covishield should be provided to the petitioner. But this is a great casualty; a clear violation of Fundamental Rights. Now there are two groups of people in the country - while the ones who were administered Covishield can travel across international borders, the ones who chose Covaxin are refrained from doing so. Isn't the Government answerable for this? Isn't it the Government's duty to redress his grievance?" 

Assistant Solicitor General of India S. Manu responded that these vaccines were introduced by the government to save lives during a raging pandemic and that it was not practical or feasible to wait for international recognition for these vaccines at that juncture. The Bench then clarified:

"I'm not blaming the Central Government at all. All I am saying is that this is an individual concern and he is refrained from going back to his workplace, so it should be redressed."

The ASGI then informed the Court that pursuant to WHO's approval, several individual countries had started recognising Covaxin, such as the UK.  He then stated that he will verify Saudi Arabia's stand in the same. It was also submitted that the Government has its own limitation to impose its stand on another country.

Regarding the prayer seeking booster shot of Covishield, the ASGI responded that public interest has to be put on a higher pedestal.

The Court accordingly directed the ASGI to get specific instructions regarding the recognition of Covaxin in Saudi Arabia. The matter will be taken up again on 29th November. 

The petitioner, an NRI who works in Saudi Arabia had been administered two doses of Covaxin upon arriving in India.

However, pursuant to administering the vaccine, he came to know that Covaxin was not recognized by the Government of Saudi Arabia. The Kingdom only approves Covishield, which is the equivalent of AstraZeneca.

Therefore, the petitioner moved the court for a third jab and if not vaccinated with an internationally recognised vaccine, he could lose his job in Saudi.

In his plea, the petitioner had urged that it was time to explore mixed doses of COVID 19 vaccines. The State had earlier informed the Court that clinical trials are underway to ascertain the efficacy of administering a third dose of the Covid-19 vaccine and that it will take another few months to reach completion.

Case Title: Girikumar Thekan Kunnumpurath v. Ministry of Health and Family Welfare & Ors.