SC says it prefers if DGHS makes statements

To avoid confusion among the people, it would be preferable that the Director General of Health Services (DGHS) makes all state communications regarding COVID-19 vaccination.

If anyone makes a statement or communique without the DGHS’s approval, he/she will be responsible for that action, the Supreme Court has observed.

A three-judge SC bench made this observation when it took up for hearing a Fundamental Rights petition requesting a ruling that administering the COVID-19 vaccine to those below 18 years without the consent of a parent or guardian is a violation of fundamental rights.

The petition has been filed by Dr Dharani Rajasingham and two others. The petitioners argue that while various people are speaking about making the COVID-19 vaccine mandatory, there is currently no such law in the country and that any move to make the vaccine mandatory must come via a law approved by Parliament. As no such law exists, one cannot force anyone to obtain the COVID-19 vaccine against his or her will, the petitioners argue.

When the case was taken up, the Attorney General (AG) informed the bench that the DGHS would be in charge of the entire COVID pandemic and COVID vaccination programme and he would be answerable to all the activities of the Government. Filing a sworn affidavit before court, the DGHS has reiterated the position that the Health Ministry has not issued any communication, regulation or law mandating compulsory vaccination.

The court has observed that the DGHS has emphasised in his affidavit that the Government's vaccination programme “is purely voluntary.”

The SC bench comprises Justices S. Thurairaja, Shiran Gooneratne and Achala Wengappuli.

Dr K. Kanag-Isvaran, PC, with Nigel Bartholomeusz, Dilshanu Wijewardane and Lakshman Jeykumar, instructed by Sinnadurai Sunderalingam appeared for the petitioners.

Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Viveka Siriwardena, PC, with State Counsel Shiloma David appeared for the respondents.