Rajasthan High Court Dismisses Plea Against Discrimination Based On Covid-19 Vaccination Status

A division bench of Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice Shubha Mehta dismissed the petition after the Advocate General informed the Court that the Supreme Court has passed a detailed order, declaring that no individual can be forced to get vaccinated and the vaccine mandates imposed by various state governments and other authorities in the context of COVID-19 pandemic are "not proportionate".

The High Court thus dismissed the PIL filed by social activist Jyotsana Rathore, noting that the government will reconsider the existing guidelines relating to Covid-19 pandemic in light of the observations given by the Supreme Court.

The Petitioner had expressed concern that the impugned order makes the vaccination process mandatory and discriminates against similarly placed people based on the vaccination status.

In Jacob Puliyel v. Union of India 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 439 the Supreme Court has held that no substantial data has been produced on record to show that the risk of transmission of COVID-19 virus from the unvaccinated persons are higher than from vaccinated persons.

The Apex Court also held that Government is entitled to impose restrictions on individual rights in public health interests, but the restrictions should meet the 3-fold requirement legality, legitimate need and proportionality laid down by the Supreme Court in the Puttaswamy judgment.

"No data has been placed by the Union of India or the States appearing before us, controverting the material placed by the Petitioner in the form of emerging scientific opinion which appears to indicate that the risk of transmission of the virus from unvaccinated individuals is almost on par with that from vaccinated persons. In light of this, restrictions on unvaccinated individuals imposed through various vaccine mandates by State Governments / Union Territories cannot be said to be proportionate", the Apex Court had stated.

Petitioner's Contentions

The plea stated that the order is founded on the unreasonable classification, i.e., the status of COVID-19 vaccination, without any rational nexus imposing an embargo on the individual's right of the continuance of occupation and/or profession and hence on the right to life. Thus, the impugned order blatantly violates Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

It alleged colourable exercise of power by the State of Rajasthan as it attempts to curtail the fundamental rights of the citizens indirectly, something which cannot be infringed directly. By incentivising the vaccination process, the State is awarding what is already guaranteed by the Constitution.

"The impugned order by making COVID19 vaccination mandatory in nature fails to create a level playing field for all as it ignores ground realities such as accessibility to vaccine centres, technical barriers in registration on CoWIN portal, pre-medical conditions (allergies), vaccination for specially-abled people etc., and affords no exemptions/ relaxations to those unable to comply with the same due to reasons mentioned above."

Advocates Ayush Singh, Himanshu Kala, Nishchaya Nigam and Punit Singhvi appeared on behalf of the petitioner while A.G. M.S. Singhvi with Advocates Darsh Pareek, Sheetanshu Sharma and Pranav Bhansali appeared on behalf of the state.

Case Title: Jyotsana Rathore v. State of Rajasthan

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 214

Click Here To Read/Download Order