Delhi High Court dismissed the plea saying, “We see no reasons to entertain the writ petition. Concerned respondent authorities may treat the petition as a representation and decide it in accordance with the law, rules, regulations and government policy applicable to the facts of the case.”
The Delhi High Court today declined to entertain a plea seeking waiver of clinical trials of foreign vaccines and priority in vaccination to those who have already taken the first dose, and said authorities may treat the plea as a representation.
A bench of Chief Justice DN Patel and Justice Jyoti Singh said the reliefs sought in the petition by a lawyer pertained to drafting of policies which was not the domain of the courts which would consider making policy decision only in exceptional cases.
The court said the petition by advocate Nazia Parveen was seeking priority in vaccination for those who have already received the first dose of the vaccine and such a relief cannot be given “just for the asking”.
“It has become a fashion in Delhi that every now and then people are rushing to the courts with PILs for priority in vaccination.”
“If everyone is given priority, question would be who will come next in line. Government has its own priorities,” the bench said.
With regard to the prayer seeking information regarding status of vaccine doses ordered for the vaccination drive starting from May 1, the bench said these details can be sought under the Right to Information Act and filing a writ petition or a plea was not the appropriate remedy.
On the issues of framing a policy with regard to vaccine distribution and waiver of clinical trias of foreign vaccines, as sought in the plea filed through advocate Sanjeev Sagar, the bench said policy decisions are taken by experts in the field as it was a complex phenomena.
“It (policy) cannot be drafted by courts. We are not going to exercise our power to draft a policy,” the bench said.
On the issue of bottling of vaccines raised in the plea, the bench said it was a technical aspect to be dealt with by experts.
The court also said that few of the prayers in the petition related to issues already pending before the Supreme Court and therefore, that was another reason not to entertain the plea.
“We see no reasons to entertain the writ petition. Concerned respondent authorities may treat the petition as a representation and decide it in accordance with the law, rules, regulations and government policy applicable to the facts of the case.”
“With these observations, the petition is disposed of,” the court said.
(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by our staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)