HC fumes at state for seeking Centre’s approval for experimental home vaccination in Mumbai

The state health department on Tuesday filed an affidavit in the Bombay high court (HC) wherein it has proposed to start home vaccination for the severely ill and bed-ridden persons on an experimental basis, but with five mandatory conditions

The state health department on Tuesday filed an affidavit in the Bombay high court (HC) wherein it has proposed to start home vaccination for the severely ill and bed-ridden persons on an experimental basis, but with five mandatory conditions. The affidavit states that though a policy on the same is yet to be declared, it has formulated the plan based on suggestions of the state Covid task force and sent it to the state government for approval, which will then be sent for a nod from the Central government. The court then sought to know why it required the approval of the Centre when the issue of health was also on the state list in the Constitution.

HT Image

The affidavit was filed in the public interest litigation (PIL) which has sought door-to-door vaccination for those who cannot go to vaccination centres.

The division bench of chief justice Dipankar Datta and justice Girish Kulkarni, while hearing the PIL filed by lawyers Dhruti Kapadia and Kunal Tiwari, was informed by the advocate general Ashutosh Kumbhakoni that the Dr Dilip Narayan Patil, deputy director, State Family Welfare Bureau, Pune, had filed an affidavit illustrating the implementation of the home vaccination proposal on an experimental basis.

The affidavit listed five conditions including home vaccination only for bedridden beneficiaries, a prior certificate from treating doctor to show beneficiary is truly immobile, doctor to certify the beneficiary not likely to have adverse events following immunisation (AEFI) and be ‘entirely responsible’ to provide appropriate treatment in case of AEFI as a requisite for the vaccination. The affidavit also added that a written consent from the family members was required and to avoid wastage of the vaccine there should be at least 10 beneficiaries in close proximity for the home vaccination to be carried out.

The affidavit concluded that the proposed regime would be sent to the state government and thereafter to the Central government for approval before it was implemented.

On June 22 the state had submitted draft guidelines prepared by the state Covid task force on implementing door-to-door vaccination and had sought a week to get it approved by the state government. The HC had observed that progress on the issue of formulating measures for elderly and specially-abled persons was in the right direction.

However, after perusing the affidavit, the court questioned the state government on the diluted guidelines and sought to know why it required the approval of the Centre when the issue of health was also on the state list in the Constitution. The court further asked whether states like Bihar, Jharkhand and Kerela had obtained approvals from the centre before starting home vaccination initiatives in their respective states.

Responding to the affidavit Kapadia submitted that private doctors would not issue prior certificates of home vaccination beneficiaries not having AEFI nor would they take responsibility for the same and hence insisted that such conditions should be left out from the guidelines.

The bench then observed, “This affidavit dilutes the task force guidelines. Today’s affidavit again takes a back step. We had appreciated the draft guidelines framed by the task force. You will find a radical change. This is not what we expected from the state.” Thus saying the bench adjourned the hearing of the PIL on Wednesday, June 30.