Door-to-door vax in Mumbai: Covid is the enemy, conduct surgical strikes, HC tells Centre

The Bombay high court (HC) has asked the Centre to adopt a surgical strike approach and not wait for the needy, elderly and specially-abled persons to go to vaccination centres

The Bombay high court (HC) has asked the Centre to adopt a surgical strike approach and not wait for the needy, elderly and specially-abled persons to go to vaccination centres. The court also questioned the Centre as to why it had refused permission to the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) to conduct door-to-door vaccination when other states and certain civic authorities across the country had already started the same without waiting for a go-ahead from the Centre. In light of this, the HC has asked the Centre to inform it on Friday whether it will be considering a national policy on the issue of door-to-door vaccination.

HT Image

The division bench of chief justice Dipankar Datta and justice Girish Kulkarni, while hearing the public interest litigation (PIL) filed by advocates Dhruti Kapadia and Kunal Tiwari seeking directions to the Centre, the state and BMC to provide door-to-door vaccination to those aged over 75, the specially-abled and bed-ridden, was informed by Kapadia that the state of Kerala had already started the same for bedridden persons and had issued a notification in this regard. She further submitted that states like Orissa, Bihar and Jammu and Kashmir had also undertaken such initiatives.

After hearing the submissions, the court referred to the near-to-door decision of the National Expert Group on Vaccine Administration for Covid-19 (NEGVAC) which was submitted by the Centre on Tuesday and sought to know from additional solicitor general Anil Singh for the Centre why it was not going to the needy persons. “You will admit Covid-19 is a bigger enemy and we have to strike it down. The enemy is residing in certain persons who cannot come out. Your approach should be like a surgical strike,” observed the bench.

“When a surgical strike is required, you are assembling force near borders and not entering into enemy territory. You are waiting. You are making decisions for public benefit, but it seems they are delayed. Decisions if taken earlier, could have saved many lives,” noted the court.

The bench then referred to the submissions by the petitioner and sought clarity on how the states had gone ahead with door-to-door vaccination if there was no policy by the Central government and said, “You should understand sentiments of families of such persons and current black fungus spread. Door-to-door is the best possibility for vaccination such persons.”

When Singh submitted that the Centre would come out with new standard operating procedures and a national policy the bench said, “Let us know your (Centre) response during next hearing. We trust the government and it can come up with a sound policy. Considering the situation in the country, if it (door-to-door) has happened in south, extreme north and east then why not west?”

While referring to the submission by senior counsel Anil Sakhare for the BMC that it was willing to have door-to-door vaccination provided the Centre approved it the bench said, “You cannot clip wings of authorities. BMC has failed to live up to our expectations.”

It also sought to know whether the BMC or the state government helped a senior politician to receive the vaccination at his home in Mumbai at the beginning of the vaccination programme.

HC has now posted the PIL for further hearing on Friday.