MUMBAI: “How is it that for political leaders the policy is different,” the Bombay high court asked on Friday when informed of news reports that a leader in Maharashtra was given Covid vaccine at home.
The HC was hearing a public interest litigation filed for its intervention to allow door-to-door jabs for the very elderly, bed-ridden and physically challenged. Advocates Dhruti Kapadia and Kunal had filed it to seek improvements in facilities for those aged over 75 and home-bound people.Kapadia, without mentioning NCP chief Sharad Pawar, who got the jab at home earlier this week, said, “We have been reading in the news that home vaccination has taken place.”
The bench of Chief Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Girish Kulkarni quickly asked the state government, which is a party to the PIL, “How is it that a political leader is given a jab at home?” The bench too did not mention Pawar’s name.
The CJ orally observed, “When we had asked the BMC commissioner to turn the HC medical room into a camp for lawyers and court staff over 45, he had expressed an inability since there was no Intensive Care Unit... Is an ICU facility made available at the residence of the political leaders?”
The HC said the PIL is not adversarial litigation. It told state government pleader Purnima Kantharia, “Whatever has happened has happened. Next time, if we find that any politician gets a jab at home, we will handle it. If PM and President of India can go to the hospital for the vaccine, why not leaders of Maharashtra?”
ASG Anil Singh and counsel Advait Sethna for the Centre tendered an ‘internal note’ to the bench and submitted its policy doesn’t permit ‘door-to-door’ vaccinations. The reason is that a doctor’s presence at the vaccination centres is a must since each recipient needs to wait for 30 minutes at the centre to ensure no adverse effects for inoculation (AEFI) occur, and if they do, they can be managed on site. The attempt is to guard against “serious adverse” reactions post the jab.Singh however said there is a helpline for people, to assist with adverse reactions (1075).
The HC said there must be a uniform policy and directed the state to file an affidavit .