Heed SC’s directions on Covid course correction
The series of directions on facilitating the treatment of Covid-19 patients, issued by a special bench of the Supreme Court in an April 30 order that was released late on Sunday, points to a visible lack of understanding on the part of the government in tackling the pandemic and requires it to launch an immediate process of course correction. The most important of the directions is to revisit the vaccine policy, which this newspaper has been demanding ever since the government placed it in the public domain. While reiterating that the court “does not attempt to delve into the role of the executive in designing policy choices” and “it is ultimately up to the executive to frame and implement policies that it deems appropriate, with the topmost regard to public interest”, the court has reminded the government that such a policy must be consistent with the right to life, which includes the right to health, guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Invoking Article 14, the court said such a policy should not discriminate between two classes of people who have been circumstanced similarly, disapproving of the policy which excludes people aged between 18 and 44 from the free vaccination programme. The court told the government that there would be people who are unable to pay for the vaccines, which leaves them at the mercy of the state government who may or may not pay for their jabs. This will create a disparity, the court has noted. It has also sought to know whether there are options available for people who do not have access to digital resources to get vaccinated as registration on the CoWin portal has been made mandatory. The court has said that it would not be logical to impose the obligation to source vaccinations for the 18-44 age group on the state governments, as it will leave them to negotiate with the manufacturers which will produce chaos and uncertainty.
After listing the potential for discrimination within the policy, the court has also advanced a rational method for the Union government with respect to vaccines: to negotiate the price with manufacturers, procure all doses and allocate it to the states. The court has also directed the government to form a uniform policy for admission of Covid-19 patients in hospitals, explore the possibilities available under the Patents Act 1970 and the Disaster Management Act 2005 and the institution of the National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority to ensure an adequate supply of oxygen and life-saving drugs such as Remdesivir and Tociluzumab.
Vaccination is one of the best and most reliable tools to combat the Covid-19 pandemic and anyone who does not have access to it is a potential victim, unable to enjoy the right to life which the Constitution guarantees. Proper treatment also falls under this category. There is only so much that a court can advise a popular government on policy and its execution, but it has left strong enough clues that a policy which is inconsistent with the constitutional provisions will be subjected to judicial review. The court’s intervention has given the government an opportunity to cover lost ground in the fight against the pandemic and take solid steps to prevent any further loss of lives and to reduce the trouble that citizens face in these harrowing times.
The court told the government that there would be people who are unable to pay for the vaccines, which leaves them at the mercy of the state government who may or may not pay for their jabs.