Kerala High Court Reserves Order On Plea Seeking Early Administration Of Vaccines

The Kerala High Court on Tuesday continued hearing a plea seeking early administration of the second jab of Covid-19 vaccine to people who are willing, and reserved its order in the matter.

Justice P.B. Suresh Kumar while hearing the matter sought clarification from the Centre as to why the interval between the two doses was relaxed for certain classes of people, while the others were forced to wait for 84 days.

This comes after Advocate Blaze K Jose appeared for the petitioner and submitted that prioritising vaccination for certain classes of the society was discrimination. 

"The Government relaxed the period between the two doses of Covishield to 28 days for students, people who were due to go abroad for work and to the athletes appearing for the Tokyo Olympics. This is discrimination. People working in India have the same right to profession as people working abroad. Why are their concerns not addressed?"

The petitioner invited the attention of the Court to the fact that the Medical Protocol itself had approved 28 days interval between the first and the second dose of the vaccine.

Therefore, it was argued that by seeking an early administration of the vaccine, the petitioner was not seeking anything illegal.

Noting that the 84 days' gap was prescribed for optimum protection, the petitioner company argued as such:

"There is nothing wrong with administering the second dose after 28 days. It is not illegal. We have 12,000 employees awaiting the second dose. This causes hindrance to their right as a citizen to decide when they want to be administered with a vaccine." 

The Counsel added that the one should not be restricted from taking the second dose after 28 days if it is permitted by the Medical protocol, as recommended by the Expert body.

The petitioner further submitted that initially, prioritization was fixed by the State due to a shortage of vaccines. However, now that the situation had changed, it was important to reconsider the same. 

The Court noted that in the matter, the main question was regarding a citizen's between early protection and better protection through the vaccine. 

On a lighter note, during the proceedings, the Court inquired, "Why are lawyers not considered in the priority list? The Government has not considered prioritizing the judges either."

The State represented by Senior Government Pleader V. Manu submitted that they were bound to follow the Central government protocol. However, it was submitted that the required 84 days must be complete by now, considering the days of hearing in the matter. 

The petitioner discredited this argument stating that this case has a larger public interest.

The Single Bench then turned to the Centre and enquired, 'if the gap is prescribed for efficacy, how come exemptions were granted to people going abroad?'

Standing Counsel Daya Sindhu Shreehari appeared for the Centre and responded that they had contacted the Expert Body before making the decision.

The Court noted that a restriction can only be imposed for a government-sponsored vaccine. For a paid vaccine, the government cannot bring in such a restriction. The individual has the right to choose.

"You probably relaxed the interval considering that life does not exist without means of livelihood. But how does that not apply to people within the State? A citizen has a choice to decide if he is paying for the vaccine," the Court remarked. 

The Bench, therefore, directed the Centre to file a statement tomorrow. The order will be pronounced a judgment on Thursday.

During a previous hearing, the Court had inquired if this gap was necessary and if it was related to the efficacy of the vaccine, or if it was extended due to the non-availability of the vaccines in the country.

Responding to this, the Centre had submitted that the gap between two jabs was extended based on the technical recommendation given by NEGVAC (National Expert Group on Vaccine Administration for COVID-19) for better protection from the Covid-19 virus.

Case Title: Kitex Garments Ltd v. State of Kerala