Consider lawyers for vaccine priority, top court asks govt

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Thursday asked the Centre to consider prioritising lawyers for Covid-19 vaccinations since “their livelihood depends on meeting people” even as the government maintained that a “vegetable vendor” has to meet a far greater number of people to make both ends meet.

The top court, however, maintained that the Centre’s expert committee on vaccination should examine the lawyers’ request, calling their concerns “genuine”.

“Their meeting people is connected to their livelihood. Advocates can earn money only when they can come in contact with people. And they want to be protected. What we want to know if you have any reservation in hearing the advocates on this point,” said the bench, led by Chief Justice of India SA Bobde, while hearing a PIL that has also sought to include judges and court staff in the priority groups.

Representing the government, solicitor general Tushar Mehta retorted that the vaccination for those above 60 years of age, and those between 45 and 59 with 20 identified diseases, was based on their vulnerability and a rational criterion of averting mortality, notwithstanding “someone was a scientist or a villager”.

“I don’t belong to any of these classes and hence, I am also not vaccinated. I am from the same fraternity. But how can a 30-yearold lawyer be put on par with a vegetable vendor sitting in a market who has to go through the same hustle-bustle and meet far a greater number of people to earn his livelihood? Tomorrow, journalists may also make the same demand based on their meeting a large number of people,” the SG told the bench, which also included justices AS Bopanna and V Ramasubramanian.

At this, the bench replied: “We don’t know about the journalists... Whether they need to meet people for their work or whether they must meet people for their work... or whether some can do their work without meeting people.”

“We have no doubt India is leading into the vaccination drive and it is doing a great job. And the government has distinguished itself by supplying vaccines to other countries as well. We are not casting any aspersion on anyone. We are asking you that those, who must in order to earn their liveliThe hood meet people, are asking if their claims can be considered or not. This is a genuine concern on behalf of the advocates,” the bench added.

The CJI added: “We are asking the government to deal with this section of people and see what it can do.”

Mehta then sought instructions from the Union health ministry and accepted the bench’s suggestion. “Let them (lawyers) make a representation that will be given to the expert committee and we will respond in three to four days,” he told the bench. The court fixed the matter for a hearing next week.

The bench, noting that the PIL was already pending before it, restrained the Delhi high court from proceeding with a suo motu (registered on its own) case on prioritising lawyers for Covid-19 jabs and seeking details from the vaccine manufacturers on their capacity.

On the transfer plea by vaccine manufacturers, Serum Institute of India and Bharat Biotech, the bench said that the SC would hear all issues and posted the matter next week, awaiting a response from the expert committee on prioritising lawyers. Senior advocates Harish Salve and Mukul Rohatgi appeared for the transfer petitions on behalf of SII and Bharat Biotech. The duo sought suo motu proceedings before the Delhi HC to be stayed, pointing out that it would lead to problems if every high court in the country began its own exercise of deciding who should be defined as frontline workers and be vaccinated on priority.

“The high court order says we must disclose our stock and capacity to produce vaccines. We don’t want these details out in the public domain because someone could take undue advantage. This is an all-India issue. Let this be decided by the highest court,” said Rohatgi.

Salve added: “I say so as a senior member of the Bar it is a little embarrassing to see the manner in which this matter has been taken up (by HC). For a court to say whether lawyers are frontline workers or not is embarrassing. When age has a reasonable nexus with the objective sought to be achieved, I don’t see why a court should decide who should be given the vaccine first.” The SG supported their plea for transfer of the high court case to the top court. The court then issued a notice on the transfer petition.