Delaying local vax prodn should draw manslaughter charge: Delhi HC to Centre

NEW DELHI: An exasperated Delhi high court told the Centre on Wednesday that some officials needed to be booked for "manslaughter" as their failure to tap the potential for manufacturing Covid vaccines in the country was leading to many deaths.
In hard-hitting observations against the Centre for dilly-dallying in ramping up vaccine manufacturing capability, the HC said there was a lot of scope and infrastructure available which was not being used because of the fear of officials that they may face some inquiry or probe.
"The problem is of a fear psychosis that some vigilance inquiry will take place, audit will take place, police investigation will take place. Tell them this is not the time to be wary of these investigations and audit reports. This is leading to deaths today. What answer will you give for deaths due to lack of vaccines? Some people need to be charged with manslaughter if they have been sitting over this untapped potential," a bench of Justices Manmohan and Najmi Waziri said, lamenting the potential would be taken away by foreigners. It stressed the need for "urgent hand-holding" by the Centre for vaccine-makers. It cited the example of the delay in clearing samples of petitioner firm Panacea Biotec.
You need to move a little faster: HC to Centre
It cited the example of the delay in clearing samples of petitioner company Panacea Biotec, which has collaborated with Russian Direct Investment Fund (RDIF) for manufacturing Sputnik V locally. “There is a lot of scope and infrastructure for manufacture of vaccines in India, which is going untapped and this is a factor you (Centre) must consider. This untapped potential has to be utilised. You can’t leave this potential untapped. Foreigners coming here should not take away this untapped potential. Your officers are not realising this,” said the bench.
It added, “Himachal has a population of 75 lakh, Rajasthan has eight crore, Punjab has three crore. All these can be done by some manufacturer in north India. Half of the country can be fed by this only. There is a real urgency.”
The bench wanted to know why the Centre was insisting on the firm going through a bridge trial when the imported vaccine was exempted. “The bridge trial should have been conducted even with regard to the imported vaccine. You have done away with it for the imported vaccine. Why insist on it for the domestic manufacturer but not for the manufacturer abroad?” the HC asked, adding that if the vaccine has been approved for administering to the Indian public, the government only needs to examine if the Indian samples being produced are in conformity with the existing standards.
“An entire state could have been vaccinated in no time. You need to move a little faster. We understand your point on safety, but this can be done very quickly,” it said, adding that these were extraordinary circumstances and the officers dealing with these files need to be sensitised.
However, additional solicitor general Balbir Singh, representing the Centre, said Panacea is far from producing the Covid-19 vaccine as key approvals are pending. The law officer maintained that the firm doesn’t lack funds to make these vaccines since it is getting money from Russian Direct Investment Fund (RDIF).
Singh maintained that Supreme Court was seized of the issues of procuring and manufacturing of vaccines, including Sputnik, and urged the HC to not pass any orders.
But the HC countered by reminding the Centre about those who have lost their lives because of lack of vaccination and asked it to act fast. “There is a tearing hurry and it’s an emergency. You expedite your decision so that there is ‘some rahat ki saans’,” the bench told Singh.
The bench took note of “an element of palpable disquiet in the country when everybody wants the vaccine. We have to cut this short. And the rule itself empowers you to actually waive this (trial), if you in your wisdom like to waive. In the end, they are identical products – one is imported and another manufactured here,” the bench said, asking the ASG to seek clarity by June 4.