HC: Can’t entertain PIL on vaccine prices, approach SC

MUMBAI: The Bombay high court (HC) on Thursday refused to entertain a public interest litigation (PIL) seeking directions to the Centre to apply uniform pricing of ₹150 for Covid-19 vaccines by taking over stocks being manufactured by Serum Institute of India (SII) and Bharat Biotech.

The HC said that as the Supreme Court was seized of matters which had national implications, it would not hear the current PIL and directed the petitioners to approach the SC.

The division bench of chief justice Dipankar Datta and justice Girish Kulkarni, while hearing a suo motu PIL related to the spread of Covid-19 among jail inmates and jail staff, was told that vaccination in jails had been stopped due to shortage. Advocate Vivek Shukla appearing on behalf of the petitioners, city-based lawyer Fayzan Khan and three law students, sought to intervene and informed the court that his PIL was on the issue of difference in the rate of the vaccine being charged by the manufacturers and should be heard.

The petitioners contended that the differential pricing of the vaccines for Centre, state and private hospitals was discriminatory and pharma companies were milking the fear psychosis of increased death rate due to Covid– 19 and sought directions to the central government to acquire the entire supply and control the vaccine price.

They also contended pharmaceutical firms were engaged in “organised loot” and the HC should intervene to protect “national public health” and ensure the fundamental right to equality and life under the Constitution is “not left to the mercy of pharmaceutical companies”.

After advocate Shukla mentioned the PIL for urgent hearing, on Thursday morning, the HC said, “The Supreme Court (which is hearing suo motu PIL on Covid management) has said that issues having pan-india effect will be dealt with by it. Vaccine pricing is a phenomenon applicable all over India and therefore we are not entertaining it (PIL) as SC has fairly covered it.”

The bench suggested the petitioners should move to the Apex court for relief.