Aryan Grover
The division bench of Justice Rajiv Sahai Endlaw and Justice Amit Bansal dismissed a PIL filed by a final year law student of Campus Law Centre, New Delhi for door-to-door COVID-19 vaccination.
Voicing its opinion, it stated, “It seems Campus Law Centre is not keeping you busy, without going through the whole facts, you have filed a PIL?” The remark was made after the petitioner failed to present the court with data on the issue.
Filed by Mrigank Mishra, the PIL sought door-to-door Covid-19 vaccination to ensure rapid immunisation of the masses. However, the court was dissatisfied with the replies given to it on questions about the availability of number of vaccines at vaccination centres across the capital and the number of beneficiaries of each centre on a single day.
Advocate Ashish Mohan, appearing as the counsel for the petitioner, addressed the questions of the bench, informing them that there were about 400 beneficiaries every day in each centre, divided into approximately 100 beneficiaries every session in the 4 sessions that take place. However, Advocate Mohan failed to answer the question about the number of vaccines available at these centres.
The court maintained that home vaccinations are a cause of concern, citing medical advice, since it is easier to access medical facilities at the centres in case of emergencies. Justice Endlaw commented, “Infact my doctor has told me that it’s better to take the vaccine at a medical facility, which will have facilities in case of emergency.”
When the counsel appearing for the petitioner refused to withdraw, the court inquired, “What does his father do? How much costs can he pay?”- thereby indicating that it might be forced to dismiss the petition while imposing costs.
Finally, observing the lack of answers available with the petitioner, the court stated, “This shows the shallowness of the petition and that it has been filed for publicity rather than out of a serious intent.”