Hearing deferred as SC judge is Covid +
New Delhi: The Supreme court hearing on Thursday on suo motu petition relating to the management of different aspect of Covid treatment has been deferred as Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, heading the bench, has reportedly tested positive for Covid-19.
The Supreme court hearing on Thursday on suo motu petition relating to the management of different aspect of Covid treatment has been deferred as Justice D.Y. Chandrachud heading the bench has reportedly tested positive of Covid.
The top court in a suo motu proceedings is hearing issues relating to the distribution of essential supplies and services during pandemic. The matter was listed on May 10 but due to technical glitches disrupting the hearing through video conferencing, the matter was adjourned for May 13, 2021.
A notice issued by the top court registry today said that since one of the judges hearing suo motu matter has tested Covid positive, the matter listed before the special bench stand deferred and the fresh date of listing will be notified later.
Though the notice by the top court registry does not name the judge who has tested positive, Justice Chandrachud, the sources said has tested positive.
Besides Justice Chandrachud, other judges on the bench are Justice L. Nageswara Rao and Justice S. Ravindra Bhat.
In April, four judges of the Supreme Court had tested positive for Covid-19, with one of the judges requiring hospitalization.
Justice chandrachuud by his April 30, 2021, judgment had asked the Central government to go for centralized procurement and decentralised distribution of Covid vaccine. The court had asked the Centre to revisit its differential pricing of the Covid vaccine.
The court had also said that the existing policy that burdens States to individually source the vaccine may lead to chaotic situations.
However, the Centre in response by an affidavit on May 9, 2021, had defended it market driven differential pricing of Covid vaccine asserting that it will incentivised demand, lead to higher production, competition and attract overseas investors.
Telling the top court to keep-off from the executive domain, the Centre in its affidavit had said that an “Any overzealous, though well-meaning judicial intervention may lead to unforeseen and unintended consequences, in absence of any expert advice or administrative.”
The Centre had further said that t in such “grave and unprecedented” crisis, the “wisdom of the executive should be trusted”.