Like captain of Titanic, judiciary should be last to get Covid-19 vaccine: Bombay HC chief justice

While chiding petitioning lawyers for being selfish and seeking Covid-19 vaccination for the judiciary on priority, ahead of others, through public interest litigation (PIL), the chief justice (CJ) of Bombay high court (HC) Dipankar Datta observed that as the number of vaccines available per day was limited, municipal employees who go from door to door providing essential services every day were more deserving of getting vaccinated on a priority

While chiding petitioning lawyers for being selfish and seeking Covid-19 vaccination for the judiciary on priority, ahead of others, through public interest litigation (PIL), the chief justice (CJ) of Bombay high court (HC) Dipankar Datta observed that as the number of vaccines available per day was limited, municipal employees who go from door to door providing essential services every day were more deserving of getting vaccinated on a priority. The CJ further held that just like the captain of the sinking ship Titanic who did not leave till all passengers were evacuated, the judiciary should be the last to get vaccinated.

Bombay high court.

When informed that the Supreme Court (SC) was seized of a petition filed by the vaccine manufacturer seeking transfer of all such PILs filed in various high courts across the country to the SC, the CJ said the hearing would continue in the PIL on March 17 if there was anything amiss in the policy.

A division bench of chief justice Dipankar Datta and justice Girish Kulkarni, while hearing the PIL filed by advocate Vaishnavi Gholave and another through advocates Vinod Sangvikar and Yashodeep Deshmukh, was informed that it sought to declare members of the legal fraternity as frontline workers and get them the Covid-19 vaccination on a priority basis.

The petition further stated that after lawyers were added to the list of essential service providers in October and were allowed to travel on local trains vaccinating members of the legal fraternity would avoid the risk of Covid-19 in courts where a large number of people assemble.

After hearing the submissions in the PIL the CJ observed, “You are asking judges to be vaccinated first because they are Covid-19 warriors? Why not the municipal employees who come every day to your house to pick up garbage. There are people providing food during the lockdown. Aren’t they frontline workers?”

The bench further said, “Why should we think of the lawyers, judges only? Why not the staff of private organisations? What happens when someone does not survive. Survival is more important. This is very selfish of you.”

Advocate Deshmukh responded saying that lawyers providing legal aid to needy litigants had worked throughout the lockdown and represented them as well as per state duty, hence they should get vaccinated to which the bench replied, “No doubt there is a risk but we have to exercise caution and take precautions by following Covid protocols. Have faith in the executive as they have done such a wonderful job in containing and combatting the infection.”

While comparing the judiciary and the captain of the Titanic ship CJ said, “Have you seen Titanic? Do you recollect the captain of the ship? Do you remember what he did? He has to wait till others are evacuated. He was the last one. First, everyone gets it and the judiciary gets it last. I am the captain here.”

Additional solicitor general (ASG) Anil Singh for the Union of India then informed the bench that similar pleas were before several high courts and Delhi High Court had also initiated a suo motu petition with regards to the vaccination drive. Singh also added that Bharat Biotech, the vaccine manufacturer had filed an application before the SC for transferring all pleas there.

The CJ then asked the centre that whenever it decided to vaccinate the legal fraternity it should consider lawyers working with the legal services authority on priority.

“Since you have told us that there is an application for transfer pending, we won’t give our opinion at this stage. We will give our opinion only if there is something amiss in the policy,” said the CJ and posted the hearing of the PIL to Wednesday, March 17.