Prime Minister Narendra Modi added as a party Respondent by the High Court of Bombay and askedto assist High Court in deciding the illegality of circulars issued by Maharashtra Government on vaccine mandates
In a big development in a PIL filed before Bombay High Court challenging the arbitrary vaccine mandates of the State Government, the Counsel for Petitioner has sent a notice to Respondent No. 8Shri. Narendra Modi, calling upon him to authorize a person to assist the High Court in deciding the Petition on merits.
Maharashtra Government’s game is over nowas they cannot formulate any rule against the National Authority and that the National Authority is against any restriction on unvaccinated.
The Division Bench of Bombay High Courthas accepted the request of Adv. Nilesh Ojha representing the Petitioner, to add the National Disaster Management Authority (NDMA) as a Respondent.
Prime Minister Shri. Narendra Modi is the Chairman of the NDMA. Courthas asked NDMA to help the Court in deciding the petition on merits.
The Court’s order dated 22.12.2021 reads thus;
“2. List the PIL petitions ‘First on Board’ on January 3, 2022.
3.On the oral prayer of the learned advocates for the petitioners, National Disaster Management Authority (NDMA) is impleaded as a Respondent in the PIL petitions. Service be effected on the NDMA with an intimation of the next date.
4.We are conscious of the fact that although no relief has been claimed against it, the presence of the NDMA could be of assistance for us to decide the PIL petitions finally on merits.”
This issue came before the Court due to the submission in an additional Affidavit filed by the Petitioner Shri. Yohan Tengra that the State is putting restrictions against the policy decisions of Central Government, which is not permissible as per Section 38(1) & 39(a) of the Disaster Management Act, 2005.
The State and District Authority who are taking contrary standare liable for punishment under Section 51(b), 55 of Disaster Management Act, 2005 and Section 166, 120(B), 34 etc. of Indian Penal Code.
In support of the submission, the counsel for the Petitioner has relied upon the Affidavits filed by the Union of India before the Hon’ble Bombay High Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
In the Affidavit filed before the Bombay High Court, Bench of Goa in W. P. No. 1820 of 2021 on dated 08.10.2021, it is a clear stand of Government of India and Ministry of Health and Family Welfare that,COVID-19 vaccination is completely voluntary for all citizens of India. Government of India has not formulated or suggested any policies for discrimination between citizens of India on the basis of their vaccination status.
- Excerpts from the relevant paragraphs are as under;
“9. That, it is further humbly submitted that the directions and guidelines released by Government of India and Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, do not entail compulsory or forcible vaccination against COVID-19 disease implying that COVID-19 vaccination is completely voluntary for all citizens of India. Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India has not formulated or suggested any policies for discrimination between citizens of India on the basis of their vaccination status.
10.That, it is duly advised, advertised and communicated by MoHFW through various print and social media platforms that all citizens should get vaccinated, but this in no way implies that any person can be forced to be vaccinated against her / his wishes.”
On 28 November, 2021 in a Counter Affidavit filed before Hon’ble Supreme Court by Dr. P.B.N. Prasad, working as Joint Drugs Controller (India), Central Drugs Standard Control Organisation, Directorate General of Health Services, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India, it is once again reiterated that vaccination is not linked to any benefits or services.
The Petitioner also relied on the judgment in Madan Mili’s2021 SCC OnLineGau 1503,case where policy decision of Union of India declared in Lok Sabha was also taken into consideration as under;
“3. The Petitioner contends that as per the RTI Information furnished by the Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, which is available on the website of the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India, Covid-19 vaccination is not mandatory but voluntary. A copy of the RTI Information available in the website of the Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, Government of India, has been annexed by the petitioner as Annexure 3 to the petition. The petitioner also refers to an answer given on 19.03.2021 in the Lok Sabha to an Unstarred Question No. 3976 by the Minister of State in the Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, Government of India (Annexure 4 to the petition) stating that there is no provision of compensation for recipients of Covid-19 Vaccination against any kind of side effects or medical complication that may arise due to inoculation. The Covid-19 Vaccination is entirely voluntary for the beneficiaries.”
The Counsel appearing for the State of Maharashtra submitted that, the stand of Union of India cannot be said to be the stand of National Authority under Disaster Management Act, 2005.
Therefore, Counsel for Petitioner requested the Court to add the National Authority as Respondent and to clear their stand so as to decide the issue, once and for all.
The Courthas accepted the request and added NDMA as a party Respondent.
The Counsel for Petitioner has sent a Notice to Respondent No. 8 – Shri. Narendra Modi, Prime Minister and Chairman of NDMA to appoint any officer to represent before the Bombay High Court and make the stand clear including prosecution of Chief Secretary and other officers of Maharashtra who are involved in bringing unlawful mandates and violating fundamental rights of the citizen.
- Excerpts from the Notice to Prime Minister:-
“1.That, in the above said background, the next submission of the Counsel for the Petitioner was that in view of Section 38(1) & 39(a) of Disaster Management Act, 2005; the State or District Authorities cannot bring any rules or pass any orders which are contrary to the policy decision of the National Authority.
2.However, the Hon’ble High Court put a query seeking clarification, as to, if any specific order is passed by the National Authority stating that no force or coercion in vaccination.
3.The submission of the Counsel for the Petitioner is that, the policy decision of Union of India’s Heath Ministry in their Affidavits before the Bombay High Court&the Supreme Court and the policy decision of the Union of India, as answered in Lok Sabha, is the stand of National Disaster Management Authority and they are not having any contrary stand on it. Because Hon’ble Prime Minister of India himself is the Chairman of the National Disaster Management Authority (NDMA).
4.In this regard, already a Notice is served by us, upon the Advocate for Union of India, on 20.12.2021 requesting them to throw light on the controversy. Thereafter, on 22.12.2021, as per the request of counsel for Petitioner, the National Disaster Management Authority is added as a party Respondent.
5.Hence, you are requested to forthwith get explanation from the concerned department and provide us a Written Reply at the earliest through person appointed for representing the case before Hon’ble High Court.
6.That, recently the Health Ministry of Japan has made following declaration/orders on their website:
“Consent to vaccination
Although we encourage all citizens to receive the COVID-19 vaccination, it is not compulsory or mandatory. Vaccination will be given only with the consent of the person to be vaccinated after the information provided. Please get vaccinated of your own decision, understanding both the effectiveness in preventing infectious diseases and the risk of side effects. No vaccination will be given without consent. Please do not force anyone in your workplace or those who around you to be vaccinated, and do not discriminate against those who have not been vaccinated.”
7.Furthermore, the Government of Japan also asked the citizens to make complaints to Human Rights Division, if there is any discrimination on the basis of vaccination status.
8.That the above declaration is mandatory to all countries across the world because of Universal Declaration on Bioethics & Human Rights, 2005 and also as per law laid down inMontgomery’s case [2015] UKSC 11,Airdale NHS Trust v/s. Bland (1993) 1 All ER 821, Common Cause v/s. Union of India (2018) 5SCC 1, Registrar General v/s. State of Meghalaya 2021 SCC OnLineMegh 130.
9. Needless to mention here that, in a recent case of vaccine injury, the Government of Singapore granted a compensation of Rs. 1 Crore 78 Lakhs to the victim, as the vaccine caused increase in heart beats.
Link:-https://greatgameindia.com/pfizer-heart-attack-compensation/
10.That, in the case of side effects of vaccines, the United States’ Government has set up the ‘National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program’. In the case of side effects of MMR vaccines the Court granted a settlement of 101 Million U.S. Dollars (Rupees 7,50,34,31,400 Crores).
11.That, in another case related with misrepresentation by pharma companies, by suppressing the side effects of medicines. The companies’ failure to report certain safety data was also taken into consideration. The investigating agency of the US, on their own, investigated and recovered an amount 10.2 Billion US Dollars (Approx. Rupees76,464 Crores.)
12.The Constitution Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Courtin the case of Anita Kushwaha v/s. Pushap Sadan (2016)8SCC509, hasruled that,the life of Indian Citizen is not less pricy than the life of people in England or anywhere. But in India the rights are more precious. It is ruled that;
“18…Bose,J.emphasized the importance of the right of any person to apply to the Court and demand that he be dealt with according to law. Hesaid: (Prabhakar Kesheocase [Prabhakar Kesheo Tare v. Emperor, AIR 1943 Nag 26: 1942 SCC OnLine MP 78],SCCOnLine MPpara1)
“1. … The right is prized in India no less highly than in England, or indeed any other part of the Empire, perhapseven more highly here than elsewhere; and it is zealouslyguarded by the Courts.”
13.That as pointed out during the hearing of the case, the WHO has warned the people getting CoviShield (AstraZeneca) vaccines to be careful as it is causing a serious paralytic disease GBS (Guillain Barre Syndrome).
Link:-https://www.who.int/news/item/26-07-2021-statement-of-the-who-gacvs-covid-19-subcommittee-on-gbs
14.That, in India,there are lakhs of such cases and more than 10,700 vaccine deaths being reported in media. But AEFI committee is not working fairly and properly.
15.That, as mentioned in Para 18.2 at Page No. 1000, the CoviShield vaccine are banned in 11 European Countries; only because of 1 death connected to vaccines.
The said number is now increased, as on today, around 18 European Countries have banned the use of CoviShield.
16.That, your good-self are requested to point out the concerned officials that, as per law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of State of Odisha v/s. PartimaMohanty 2021 SCC OnLine SC 1222, the public servant, more particularly from the office of Health Ministry, if failed to take an action as expected then he/she will be liable for prosecution under section 218, 201, 202, 120(B), 34, 109 etc. of Indian Penal Code.
17.Hence, you are requested to do the needful as per the preceding paras of the notice and more particularly to:
(a) Clarify the stand of National Disaster Management Authority, regarding policies of discriminating citizen on the basis of their vaccination status;
(b) Course of action taken or being taken under section 51(b) & 55 of National Disaster Management Act, 2005 against State Authorities including District Collectors who are acting contrary to the policy decisions and directives of National Disaster Management Authority.
(c) Direction to Ministry of Health &Family Welfare to update their website and give the correct and proper information about the side effects of vaccines which is mandatory as per Good Clinical Practices of ‘informed consent’ laid down under Drugs & Cosmetics Act, 1940 and also as per Universal Declaration on Bioethics & Human Rights, 2005 and law laid down in Montgomery’s case [2015] UKSC 11.”
The Bombay High Court will hear this matter next on January 3, 2022.
Download Related Documents :-
Order_Dec 15 2021;
Download Related Documents :-
Order_Dec 22 2021
Download Related Documents :-
UOI & NDMA Notice for 22.12.2021