"Look At The Benefits" : Supreme Court Rejects Challenge To Ahmedabad Municipal Body's Vaccine Mandate

The bench of Justices DY Chandrachud and Surya Kant while dismissing the plea in their order said, "In the facts and circumstances of this case, there is no case for this court to exercise its jurisdiction under Art 136 of the Constitution."

AMC had issued a circular wherein it has been stated that the Corporation has launched a grand vaccination campaign, and that entry to certain public places (zonal offices, zoos, AMTC, BRTS, Sabarmati riverfront, swimming pool, library, sports complex, etc) would be allowed to the public after checking their COVID Vaccination. The impugned circular was challenged before the Gujarat High Court.

The Bench of Justice J. B. Pardiwala and Justice Niral R. Mehta on December 17, 2021 while rejecting the PIL at the outset had observed that:

"We hail the decision/circular of the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation. The decision has been taken in public interests to ensure that COVID doesn't spread further. The state of Gujarat is Vigilant. We don't want to take any chances."

What Transpired In The Supreme Court Today?

Advocate M Kotwal for the residents of Ahmedabad submitted that the Municipal Commissioner had no authority to issue such a vaccine mandate.

"Why are you putting spoke in the wheel and why don't you get yourself vaccinated?" asked Justice Chandrachud.

Responding to the remarks posed by the Judge, the counsel submitted that there were adverse effects of vaccination. He also referred to the PIL preferred by Jacob Puliyel challenging COVID Vaccine mandates on which another bench led by Justice Nageswara Rao has reserved orders.

"Every vaccination has cost benefits and it is an age old controversy. Look at the benefit to the community. At this particular time, your clients must see the merit in the benefit which is flowing to the wider community. I don't think we should exercise our jurisdiction under Art 136," Justice Chandrachud said while expressing his inclination to dismiss the plea.

The counsel submitted that the State should issue the mandate instead of the Municipal Commissioner.

"You complain to the State, let the state issue the circular," remarked Justice Kant.

"Ultimately the Municipal Commissioner is incharge of public spaces within the city. He has to ensure the safety of the residents. He is concerned about the entire state and the welfare of people who go to parks and public places. You are under Article 136, why should we interfere?" remarked Justice Chandrachud.

Case Title: Nishant Babubhai Prajapati Vs. Union Of India| SLP (civil) 5030 of 2022

Click Here To Read/Download Order