Modify vaccination plan, HC to C’garh on order linking jabs to financial status

Chhattisgarh Covid vaccine: Janata Congress ( Jogi) chief, Amit Jogi and two others had petitioned the high court against the state government order, arguing that the sub-classification on the basis of a person’s financial status is beyond the constitutional mandate

The Chhattisgarh high court has asked the state government to modify its vaccination rollout plan for the 18-44 age group that linked the Covid-19 jabs to the financial status of the beneficiaries, ruling that the government’s April 30 order that decided the state would first administer the vaccines to the “antyodaya group” (poorest of the poor) and then people from the “Below poverty line” wasn’t correct or sustainable.

India formally launched vaccination of people in the 18-44 age group from May 1. This week, the Chhattisgarh high court told the state government to revise its order that linked access to the jabs to their financial status (HT PHOTO/Bhushan Koyande)

“Prima facie, sub-classification with reference to the ‘financial status’ alone as now ordered is not correct or sustainable,” the two-judge bench of the high court said, suggesting that the government consider quotas to ensure that no section is deprived at any point.

“We are of the view that the State Government shall fix a reasonable ratio of allotment of vaccines to the ‘Antyodaya Group’, the persons belonging to the ‘Below Poverty Line’ and the persons belonging to the ‘Above Poverty Line’, with reference to all the relevant aspects including the vulnerability, chance to spread the disease and the number of eligible persons in the group,” the bench of Chief Justice PR Ramachandra Menon and Justice Parth Prateem Sahu said in its order on Wednesday.

Janata Congress ( Jogi) chief, Amit Jogi and two others had petitioned the high court against the state government order, arguing that the sub-classification on the basis of a person’s financial status is beyond the constitutional mandate and violation of the law of equality and the equal opportunity before the law and discriminates against citizens with reference to their right to life.

Jogi said since the vaccination was the only life-saving measure against Covid-19, its denial to some groups and fixing a priority with reference to the ‘financial status’ is absolutely illegal, illogical and violative of the constitutional provisions and the central government’s vaccination policy.

Chhattisgarh advocate general Satish Chandra Verma tried to defend the state’s decision, pointing that since only a limited quantity of vaccines was available for the third phase of vaccination, a sub-classification was felt necessary.

The high court, however, did not agree with Jogi’s contention that the government should go by the first-come-first-served principle. This, the judges said, wouldn’t be appropriate for the poor and people living in rural areas. “There are several reasons behind this, such as lack of education, poverty, lack of any smartphones to affect registration in portals, the remoteness of the area where they are living, the lack of access and conveyance, the limited infrastructure available in the place of their living and also the internet connectivity.”

The bench said the poor, who may not be able to book their slots online, would be placed at a disadvantage since they would have to go to the nearest centres to make their booking. “But by the time they reach there, the portal may be closed or the bookings/registration may be stopped having obtained saturation, virtually making it detrimental to the right and interest of the children of the lesser God. This being the position, if any steps are taken by the State Government to have the benefit extended to such people as well, the object cannot be doubted.”

The court has asked the state government to formulate a scheme for the poor and set up ‘help desks’ providing spot registration and administering vaccines to them, without compromising the right of the other segments who are entitled to have equal treatment with regard to the right to life.

The court directed the state government to discuss its suggestion by secretary-level officers and fix the ratio to administer the vaccines in the third phase of vaccination (for the age group of above 18 and below 45 years) in an equitable manner.