HC asks petitioners how it can interfere in state decision which benefits public

HC held that as vaccination is a sort of weapon to fight Covid which minimises the chances of getting hospitalised, how can it be expected to interfere

MUMBAI: The Bombay high court (HC) on Monday sought to know from a petitioner who has filed a public interest litigation (PIL) against a government circular permitting only ‘fully vaccinated’ persons to travel on local trains and visit malls and workplaces whether the HC could interfere in a public scheme in which more than 75% of the population has participated. The HC held that as vaccination is a sort of weapon to fight Covid which minimises the chances of getting hospitalised, how can it be expected to interfere. The court asked the petitioner to respond within a week’s time.

chief secretary of state Debashish Chakrabarty said that the state had acted on reasonable restriction under parens patriae (Bachchan Kumar)

A division bench of chief justice Dipankar Datta and justice Makarand Karnik, while hearing the PIL filed by activists Feroz Mithiborewala and Yohan Tengra, was informed by advocate Nilesh Ojha for Tengra that the circular issued by the state government in August 2021 violated citizens’ fundamental right to equality by discriminating between vaccinated and non-vaccinated persons and therefore the circular should be set aside and directions should be issued to the authorities to permit non-vaccinated persons to travel on local trains and visit malls and workplaces.

Last month, chief secretary of state Debashish Chakrabarty said that the state had acted on reasonable restriction under parens patriae (power to protect persons who are unable to act on their own). However, advocate Ojha argued that while the CS himself had failed to get vaccinated claiming that was his choice, how could the common man be forced to do the same.

While Ojha stressed that most of the hospitalised persons were either fully vaccinated or had received one dose, the bench said, “These are steps for the fight against Covid. There are people who have contracted Covid after wearing masks, vaccination and physical distancing. However, the idea behind vaccination is that it will act as a shield against future infection. If the state has taken a policy decision, which it is entitled to take in the larger public interest, will that be a ground for us to say that the policy should be interfered with?” The court asked the petitioners to respond to its query and posted hearing of the PIL to January 17.