63.5% health staff get shots, govt says drive to run another 5 days

NEW DELHI: With 63.5% of the registered health care workers having received vaccines against the coronavirus disease (Covid-19) across the country till Saturday, the deadline for the inoculation drive, the health ministry instructed states to immunise as many health care workers as possible during the next five days as part of a “mop up” round.

According to the Union health ministry, 10.8 million doses have been administered across the country, with 6.35 million health care workers receiving at least one shot of the vaccine till Saturday evening.

Almost 874,000 health care workers have received their second shot as well. The government had identified nearly 10 million health care workers for the programme. India also crossed the milestone of administering vaccine to over 10 million people on Saturday.

Puducherry recorded the lowest vaccine coverage among health care workers, with only 31.9% of the registered beneficiaries receiving the shots till Saturday evening, followed by Chandigarh with 35.6% and Punjab with 38.7%. The national capital was also among the seven states and Union Territories with less than 50% vaccination coverage for the health care workers. According to the data shared by the Delhi government, 50.7% of the health care workers were immunised till Saturday evening.

Among the 20 million frontline workers identified by the 25,746

government for the drive, 3.6 million received the vaccine.

So far, 10 states and UTS have vaccinated 50% of their frontline workers. Topping the list was Dadra and Nagar Haveli that has already vaccinated 89.6% of its registered frontline workers, followed by 84.6% in Rajasthan and 80.2% in Gujarat.

Meanwhile, a sharp rise in the number of Covid-19 cases in states such as Maharashtra and Punjab has experts worried, with most suggesting that the vaccination coverage has to be ramped up to curb the spread of the disease.

Former IPS officer Kiran Bedi, who was removed as Puducherry lieutenant governor (L-G) on February 16, spoke to Ramesh Vinayak about the powers of the L-G in the Union territory and the allegations of non-cooperation levelled against her by CM V Narayanasamy. Edited excerpts:

The constitutional framework for the lieutenant governor of Puducherry provided that you had to work on the aid and advice of the council of ministers. But CM V Narayanasamy alleged that you did not?

In terms of Section 44 of the Government of Union Territories Act, 1963, read with Rules of Business from time to time made thereunder, all decisions taken by the cabinet are to be placed before the L-G before they are acted upon by the concerned administrative department. In 95% of the cases, I went along with the decisions taken by the cabinet. In case of difference of opinion, the L-G is required to refer the matter to the central government and the decision of the Centre is binding.

Your interpretation of the 2018 Supreme Court order in the case related to powers of the Delhi government and the L-G was totally different from the CM. You said that it provided the L-G the powers to intervene in day-to-day functioning of the government. Why do you think you were right?

The administrative set-up of the UT of Puducherry is not that of the Government of the National Capital Territory of Delhi. The UT of Puducherry is governed by the provisions of the Government of Union Territories Act, 1963. In respect of the Government of NCT of Delhi, it is governed by the constitutional provisions. The Supreme Court has categorically ruled that the NCT of Delhi is a sue generis (of its own kind) among the UTS, and therefore its order is applicable only to Delhi

The CM had alleged that you did not approve funds for building a dam or providing

relief to fishermen and blocked almost every proposal of his government. How true is this?

I did not block any welfare scheme but ensured diligence in public spending and transparency and fair deal in welfare assistances.

How do you see your longrunning confrontation with the CM, who was from the Congress?

Their political needs were in variance with the rule of law.

How do you respond to the Congress government’s charge that you had reduced the L-G office to an extension counter of the BJP?

This is a blatant lie.

The perception is that you have been eased out ahead of the assembly elections to blunt the Congress government tirade that you didn’t let it perform at the behest of the BJP.

It is a presumption.

What is your next plan? Would you like to revert to politics?

The speed at which life unfolds, I am wondering who is the architect?