Aryan Grover
A division bench of the Delhi High Court, comprising of Justice Rajiv Sahi Endlaw and Justice Amit Bansal, refused to entertain a PIL filed by a Delhi University petition on the grounds that unless the availability of vaccines is more than what can be administered, it’s fruitless to even discuss widening of the vaccination drive.
The PIL sought directions to the Centre and AAP government to relax the age criterion for the COVID-19 vaccination and to allow more private sector participation in the vaccination drive. While dismissing the petition, the High Court said, “We are prima facie of the view that the court does not have the wherewithal to deal with such matters which require empirical data.” It added that it appeared to them that the PIL had been filed for publicity rather than for the good of the society.
The petition, filed by Mrigank Mishra, a final year law student of Delhi University sought directions to the authorities to formulate a policy that provides the benefits of the vaccination drive to senior citizens, differently-abled and poor sections of the society by initiating door-to-door vaccination in the national capital. The court did not impose costs since the petitioner agreed to withdraw the petition, understanding the consequences of such litigation.
Advocate Ashish Mohan, appearing on behalf of the petitioner stated that in the light of the alarming situation that India faces, with the second wave of cases being more severe than the first, it is imperative to widen involvement of private sector to boost the vaccination drive as it will facilitate rapid and mass vaccination and door-to-door vaccination of citizens.
