[Big Breaking] High Court added Prime Minister Narendra Modi as party Respondent and asked to assist High Court in deciding the illegality of Maharashtra Government circulars on vaccine mandates.
- Counsel for Petitioner sent notice to Respondent No. 8 Shri. Narendra Modi to authorize a person to assist the High Court in deciding the petition on merits.
- Maharashtra Government's game is over now as they cannot formulate any rule against the National Authority and National Authority is against any restriction on unvaccinated.
Mumbai:
22 December, 2021:
- In a big development in a PIL filed before Bombay High Court challenging the
arbitrary vaccine mandates of the State Government.
The
Division Bench of Bombay High Court accepted the request of Adv. Nilesh Ojha
representing the Petitioner to add the National Disaster Management Authority
as a respondent.
Prime
Minister Narendra Modi is a Chairman of the NDMA. Court asked NDMA to help the
court in deciding the petition on merits.
The
Court’s order dated 22.12.2021 reads
thus;
“2.
List the PIL petitions ‘First on Board’ on January 3, 2022.
3.
On the oral prayer of the learned advocates for the petitioners, National
Disaster Management Authority (NDMA) is impleaded as a respondent in the PIL
petitions. Service be effected on the NDMA with an intimation of the next date.
4.
We are conscious of the fact that although no relief has been claimed against
it, the presence of the NDMA could be of assistance for us to decide the PIL
petitions finally on merits.”
This
issue came before the court due to the submission in additional affidavit by
the Petitioner Yohan Tengra that the State is putting restrictions against the
policy decisions of India which is not permissible as per Section 38(1) & 39(a) of the Disaster Management Act, 2005.
The
state and district authority who are taking contrary stand are liable for
punishment under Section 51(b), 55 of
Disaster Management Act, 2005 and Section
166, 120(B), 34 etc. of Indian Penal Code.
In
support of the submission the counsel for the Petitioner relied upon the
affidavits filed by the Union of India before Bombay High Court and Supreme
Court.
In
the affidavit filed before Bombay High Court, Bench at Goa in W. P. No.
1820 of 2021 on dated
08.10.2021, it is a clear stand of Government of India and Ministry of
Health and Family Welfare that COVID-19 vaccination is completely
voluntary for all citizens of India. Government of India has not formulated or
suggested any policies for discrimination between citizens of India on the
basis of their vaccination status.
Excerpts
the relevant Para are as under;
“9. That, it is further humbly submitted that the directions
and guidelines released by Government of India and Ministry of Health and
family Welfare, do not entail compulsory or forcible vaccination against
COVID-19 disease implying that COVID-19
vaccination is completely voluntary for all citizens of India. Ministry
of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India has not formulated or
suggested any policies for discrimination between citizens of India on the
basis of their vaccination status.
10. That, it
is duly advised, advertised and communicated by MoHFW through various print and
social media platforms that all citizens should get vaccinated, but this in no
way implies that any person can be forced to be vaccinated against her / his
wishes.”
On 28th November, 2021 in
a Counter Affidavit filed before Hon’ble Supreme Court by Dr. P.B.N. Prasad,
working as Joint Drugs Controller (India), Central Drugs Standard
Control Organisation, Directorate General of Health
Services, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India, it
is once again reiterated that vaccination is not linked to any benefits or
services.
The
Petitioner also relied on the judgment in Madan
Mili’s 2021 SCC OnLine Gau 1503, case where policy decision of Union of India
declared in Lok Sabha was also taken in to consideration as under;
“3. The petitioner contends that as per the RTI Information furnished by the Ministry of Health &
Family Welfare, which is available in the website of the Ministry of
Health and Family Welfare, Government of India, Covid-19 vaccination is not a
mandatory but a voluntary. A copy of the RTI Information available in the
website of the Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, Government of India,
has been annexed by the petitioner as Annexure 3 to the petition. The
petitioner also refers to an answer
given on 19.03.2021 in the Lok Sabha to an Unstarred Question No. 3976 by the
Minister of State in the Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, Government of
India (Annexure 4 to the petition) stating that there is no provision of
compensation for recipients of Covid-19 Vaccination against any kind of side
effects or medical complication that may arise due to inoculation. The Covid-19
Vaccination is entirely voluntary for the beneficiaries.”
The counsel appearing for the State of
Maharashtra submitted that the stand of Union of India cannot be said to be the
stand of National Authority under Disaster Management Act, 2005.
Therefore
counsel for Petitioner requested the court to add the National Authority as
respondent and to clear their stand so as to decide the issue once for all.
Court
accepted the request and added NDM Authority as party respondent.
The
Counsel for Petitioner sent a Notice to Respondent No. 8 Shri. Narendra Modi,
P. M. and Chairman of N.D.M. Authority to appoint any officer to represent
before Bombay High Court and make the stand clear including prosecution of
Chief Secretary and other officers of Maharashtra who are involved in bringing
unlawful mandates and violating fundamental rights of the citizen.
Excerpts from the Notice
to Prime Minister:-
“1. That, in the abovesaid background, the next
submission of the Counsel for the Petitioner was that in view of Section 38(1)
& 39(a) of Disaster Management Act, 2005 the State or District Authorities
cannot bring any rules or pass any orders which are contrary to the policy
decision of the National Authority.
2. However, the Hon’ble High Court put a query
seeking clarification, as to, if any specific order is passed by the National
Authority stating that no force or coercion in vaccination.
3. The
submission of the Counsel for the Petitioner is that the policy decision of
Union of India’s Heath Ministry in their affidavits before Bombay High Court
& Supreme Court and the policy decision of the Union of India as answered
in Lok Sabha is the stand of National Disaster Management Authority and they
are not having any contrary stand on it. Because Hon’ble Prime Minister of
India himself is the Chairman of the National Disaster Management Authority (NDMA).
4. In this regard already a
notice is served by us, upon the advocate for Union of India, on 20.12.2021
requesting them to throw light on the controversy. Thereafter, on 22.12.2021 as
per the request of counsel for petitioner the National Disaster Management Authority is added as a party
respondent.
5. Hence, you are requested to forthwith get
explanation from the concerned department and provide us a written reply at the
earliest through person appointed for representing the case before Hon’ble High
Court.
6. That,
recently the Health Ministry of Japan has made Following declaration/orders on
their website:
“Consent to vaccination
Although we encourage all citizens to receive
the COVID-19 vaccination, it is not compulsory or mandatory. Vaccination will
be given only with the consent of the person to be vaccinated after the
information provided. Please get vaccinated of your own decision, understanding
both the effectiveness in preventing infectious diseases and the risk of side
effects. No vaccination will be given without consent. Please do not force
anyone in your workplace or those who around you to be vaccinated, and do not
discriminate against those who have not been vaccinated.”
7. Furthermore the Government of Japan also asked the
citizens to make complain to Human Rights Division if there is any
discrimination on the basis of vaccination status.
8. That the above declaration is mandatory to all
countries across the world because of Universal Declaration on Bioethics
& Human Rights, 2005 and also as per law laid down in Montgomery’s case
[2015] UKSC 11, Airdale NHS Trust Vs. Bland (1993) 1 All ER
821,
Common Cause Vs. Union of India (2018) 5SCC 1, Registrar General Vs. State of Meghalaya 2021
SCC OnLine Megh 130.
9. Needless to mention here that, in a recent case of
vaccine injury the Government of Singapore granted a compensation of Rs. 1
Crore 78 Las to the victim as vaccine cause increase in heart beats.
Link:-https://greatgameindia.com/pfizer-heart-attack-compensation/
10. That, in a case of side
effects of vaccines, the United States Government has set up the ‘National
Vaccine Injury Compensation Program’. In a case of side effects of MMR vaccines the court granted a settlement of
101 Million U.S Dollars ( Rupees 7,50,34,31,400 Crores).
11. That, in another case related with
misrepresentation by pharma companies by suppressing the side effects of
medicines. The companies failure to report certain safety data was also taken
into consideration. The investigating agency of US at their own investigated
and recovered an amount 10.2 Billion U.S. Around 7,57,71,92,40,000 Crore
Rupees.
12. Constitution Bench of
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Anita Kushwaha Vs. Pushap Sadan (2016) 8 SCC 509, has
ruled that the life of Indian Citizen is not less pricy than the life
of people in England or anywhere. But in India the rights are more precious.
It is ruled that;
“18… Bose, J. emphasised the importance of the right of any person to apply to the court and demand that he
be dealt with according to law. He said: (Prabhakar Kesheo case
[Prabhakar Kesheo Tare v. Emperor, AIR 1943 Nag 26 : 1942
SCC OnLine MP 78] , SCC OnLine MP
para 1)
“1. … The right is prized in India no less highly than
in England,
or indeed any other part of the Empire, perhaps even more highly here than elsewhere; and it is zealously guarded
by the courts.”
13. That
as pointed out during the hearing of the case, the WHO has warned the people
getting CoviShield (AstraZeneca) vaccines to be careful as it is causing a
serious paralytic disease GBS (Guillain Barre Syndrome).
Link: https://www.who.int/news/item/26-07-2021-statement-of-the-who-gacvs-covid-19-subcommittee-on-gbs
14. That, in India, there are Lacs of such cases and more
than 10,700 vaccine deaths are
reported in media. But AEFI committee is not working fairly and properly.
15.
That, as mentioned in Para 18.2 at Page No. 1000 the CoviShield
vaccine are banned in 11 European Countries. Only because of 1 death connected
to vaccines.
The
said number is now increased an as on today around 18 European Countries banned
the use of CoviShield.
Link:https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/3/15/which-countries-have-halted-use-of-astrazenecas-covid-vaccine
16.
That, your goodself are requested to point out the concerned officials that as
per law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme court in the case of State of Odisha
Vs. Partima Mohanty 2021 SCC OnLine SC 1222, the public servant more
particularly from the office of Health Ministry if failed to take action as
expected then he/she will be liable for prosecution. Under section 218, 201, 202, 120(B), 34, 109 etc. of
Indian Penal Code.
17. Hence, you are
requested to do the needful as per the preceding paras of the notice and more
particularly to:
(a) Clarify the stand of National Disaster Management Authority regarding
policies of discriminating citizen on the basis of their vaccination status;
(b) Course of action taken or being taken
under section 51(b) & 55 of
National Disaster Management Act, 2005 against state authorities
including District Collectors who are acting contrary to the policy decisions
and directives of National
Disaster Management Authority.
(c) Direction to Ministry of Health & Welfare
to update their website and give the correct and proper information about side
effects of vaccines which is mandatory as per Good Clinical Practices of ‘informed consent’ laid down
under Drugs & Cosmetics Act,
1940 and also as per Universal
Declaration on Bioethics & Human Rights, 2005 and law laid down
in Montgomery’s case [2015] UKSC
11.”
You can download the copy of the said Order of Hon’ble Bombay High Court
Comments
Post a Comment