'Advocates Can Only Earn Livelihood If They Come Into Contact With People' : SC Says Lawyers' Demand For Vaccine Priority Need Consideration

The Supreme Court on Thursday orally observed that the concerns of the legal fraternity regarding priority for COVID-19 vaccination were genuine, which require consideration.

"Advocates can only earn livelihood only if they come into contact with people. They need assurance that they will not die if they come into contact with people", the Chief Justice of India SA Bobde told the Solicitor General Tushar Mehta.

The bench, also including Justices AS Bopanna and V Ramasubramanian, was considering the transfer petitions filed by vaccine manufacturers Bharat Biotech and Serum Institute of India seeking to withdraw to the Supreme Court the suo moto case taken by the Delhi High Court on vaccine priority for legal fraternity.

While Senior Advocates Mukul Rohatgi and Harish Salve, appearing for Bharat Biotech and SII respectively, took exception to the High Court asking the companies to reveal their production capacities, the CJI said :"We understand why the High Court has passed the order. It wants to know the capacity. There is no judgment passed".

The claims of the advocates are coming out of the fact that they have to come into contact with people to earn their livelihood, the CJI said.

"It is a genuine concern for advocates", the CJI added.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, who also supported the pharma companies' plea for transfer, said that there were many other categories of persons who also need to come into contact with people to earn livelihood.

"I belong to the (legal) fraternity. I am also not vaccinated. How do I distinguish between a 35-year old colleague of mine and a 35-year old vegetable vendor who is doing business in market with equal bustle and hustle?. There are several such professions. How do we distinguish?", the SG said.

The SG added that tomorrow journalists may come with such a demand, followed by other professions such as bank employees.

"Tomorrow, journalist also make a similar demand. They also come into contact with people, perhaps more than lawyers", the SG said.

"We don't know how journalists work. But we don't think a journalist has to come into contact with people.Advocates find it very difficulty not to meet people", CJI replied.

The SG said that there is no point in giving examples and counter-examples.

The SG explained that the vaccination criteria has been formulated by the expert committee by following global standards. As per global norms, priority is given to health workers, then to frontline workers(such as police, municipal worker, sweepers). Next, persons aged above 60 years, and persons in the age bracket of 45-60 with comorbidities are given vaccines, having regard to the mortality risk, the SG explained. He also said that it will be difficult to consider competing claims raised by different professional groups seeking vaccination priority.

The CJI repeatedly asked if the concerns of the lawyers can also be considered by the expert committee.

"We are not attributing mala fides to you. We are only asking can you consider and explain to this group", the CJI observed.

After a brief exchange, the SG agreed that he will place the representations concerning legal fraternity before the expert committee, which will take a decision in the next 2-3 days.

The CJI also commented that the Government of India has "distinguished" itself by leading the supply of vaccines across the globe.

"We have no doubt that India is leading in it, and doing a great job and the government has distinguished itself by leading the supply of vaccines to smaller countries", the CJI said.

After the hearing, the bench issued notice on the transfer petitions of the pharma companies and stayed the suo moto proceedings in the Delhi High Court.