Snehal Upadhyay-
Published on: August 17, 2021 09:43 IST
The Gujarat High Court on August 9 sought a response from the state on why the standards of application of the Prevention of Anti-Social Activities (PASA) Act for offences about Remdesivir sale or manufacturing varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction in Gujarat.
The single Bench of Justice Paresh Upadhyay was hearing the case related to a detention order which was issued against Nitin Suryavanshi.
Nitin Suryavanshi has accusations pertaining to manufacturing and distributing fake Remdesivir. There were two FIRs (First Information Report) that were registered against him one in Ahmedabad and the other in Vadodara. Both of these FIRs were registered at the time when the second wave of COVID-19 was at its peak.
The Court observed that “For Remdesivir (related offenders), PASA is different in Bharuch, Surat, Vadodara city and Ahmedabad. How can you leave your citizens like this? There has to be a uniform decision. Let there be some coordination with the state.”
The Assistant Public Prosecutor contended that, if there has been any offence made during the original Remdesivir then the action cannot be brought up under PASA but as per the aforementioned case the accused is among all other accused who are alleged for manufacturing and selling fake Remdesivir.
The Assistant Public Prosecutor further said, “This is a once-in-a-century event… In Covid-19, everything was closed suddenly overnight. Salaries stopped from contractors. Rations were over. There is no money, no shops were allowed to open. So many labourers were put in jail, their bail matters were before me, so I know. All for what? Would you call them accused or victim? This was the situation in March 2020. Then came the second wave when there was disorganisation (mismanagement) of Remdesivir. What went wrong, went wrong, nobody is to be blamed for it… But who has complained (for the present FIRs)? No one has complained.”
The Court said that this business done by the accused was exploitative and hence it must be stopped.
The Court further highlighted, “…This is a matter of decoy (FIRs)… Was there a complaint? Anybody complained? No. You received ‘information’. Both FIRs were registered with DCB (branch)… which is a diversion. You have to ask where this (fake remdesivir) came from and if a citizen says that they got it while waiting in a queue (then the state’s argument can be valid for issuing a detention order). What happened during demonetisation? The poor who were standing in line were not the ones with high denomination currency so they were standing on behalf of someone.”
Also Read- Jharkhand HC Reacts over State Govt regarding Remdesivir Black Marketing Case