Delhi HC refuses plea seeking reduction in gap between Covid vaccine doses

The Delhi high court on Thursday refused to hear a plea seeking to reduce the 12-16 week interval for the second dose of Covishield vaccine to eight weeks for people over 50 years of age and those having co-morbidities

The Delhi high court on Thursday refused to hear a plea seeking to reduce the 12-16 week interval for the second dose of Covishield vaccine to eight weeks for people over 50 years of age and those having co-morbidities.

HT Image

A bench of Chief Justice DN Patel and justice Jyoti Singh questioned the petitioner, a doctor, whether he knew about the procedure of how the doses are fixed. It said the petitioner’s counsel was not able to convince the court with his arguments.

“Are you aware of any procedure? How are doses fixed? Who is fixing the doses? We will have to alter the procedure if at all we have the power to do so,” the court asked advocate Kuldeep Jauhari appearing for Siddharth De, the petitioner.

“We are not inclined to issue notice. We will dismiss with costs,” said the court.

In his plea, De contended that despite a controlled 2020, there has been a surge in the number of Covid-19 cases and subsequent deaths. He said there is evidence to prove that properties of Delta variant played an important role behind the resurgence of Covid-19 cases in India as it is around 60% more transmissible, virulent and has been labelled as a VOC (variant of concern) globally.

“Thus it is imperative that the dosage interval for Covishield vaccine be brought down from 12 weeks to 8 weeks, at least for people above the age of 50 and for people above the age of 18 with existing comorbidities,” said De’s petition.

The petitioner’s counsel told the court that the Covid working group and other experts were deciding the time span between two doses. He added that based on studies conducted by scientists in the UK, there was a need to reduce the dosage interval in view of the new variants of Covid-19.

When Jauhari claimed that the petition was an “honest” one, the court responded that it had no doubt regarding the honesty of the plea and dismissal was not a certificate of dishonesty. The plea was later withdrawn by the counsel “unconditionally”.