The Supreme Court on Wednesday made scathing remarks onCentre's vaccination policy against Covid-19, terming the replacement of freevaccination in the first two phases with paid vaccination for persons between18-44 years as prima facie as "arbitrary and irrational".
In a 32-page ruling, a bench comprising Justices D.Y.Chandrachud, L. Nageswara Rao and S. Ravindra Bhat said: "Due to theimportance of vaccinating individuals in the 18-44 age group, the policy of theCentral government for conducting free vaccination themselves for groups underthe first 2 phases, and replacing it with paid vaccination by the state/UTgovernments and private hospitals for the persons between 18-44 years is, primafacie, arbitrary and irrational."
The court noted that persons between 18-44 years of agehave not only been infected by Covid-19 but have also suffered from severeeffects of the infection, including prolonged hospitalisation and, inunfortunate cases, death.
"Due to the changing nature of the pandemic, we arenow faced with a situation where the 18-44 age group also needs to bevaccinated, although priority may be retained between different age groups on ascientific basis," it said.
Healthcare workers (HCWs), frontline workers (FLWs) andpersons above the age of 45 years, were prioritised in Phases 1 and 2 forobtaining Covid-19 vaccines. The vaccination policy was substantially changedfor persons between 18-44 years of age.
The liberalised vaccination policy requires some of thesepersons to pay for the vaccines, limited vaccines were made available for thiscategory with the state/UT governments/private hospitals, and an additionalrequirement of mandatory digital registration through CoWIN.
The top court noted vaccination of the nation's entireeligible population is the singular most important task in effectivelycombating the pandemic in the long run.
Citing issues with vaccination policy, the amicus curiae,in the matter, said states and municipal bodies unsuccessfully negotiated withforeign manufacturers to procure vaccines and the Centre is better placed touse its monopoly as a buyer to bargain for higher quantities of vaccines atreasonable prices.
"We find that the submissions urged by the Amici areextremely pertinent and have indicated that in practice, the liberalisedvaccination policy may not be able to yield the desired results of spurringcompetitive prices and higher quantities of vaccines," the bench noted.
The Centre said the Union Budget for financial year2021-2022 had earmarked Rs 3,5000 crore for procuring vaccines. However, thetop court said in light of the liberalised vaccination policy, the Centre isdirected to clarify how these funds have been spent so far and why they cannotbe utilised for vaccinating persons aged 18-44 years.
Justifying its intervention on vaccine policy, the topcourt said judicial review and soliciting constitutional justification forpolicies formulated by the executive is an essential function, which the courtsare entrusted to perform. "Our Constitution does not envisage courts to besilent spectators when constitutional rights of citizens are infringed byexecutive policies," it said.
The top court added that the current vaccine policy enablesstate/UT governments and private hospitals to procure 50 percent of the monthlyCentral Drugs Laboratory approved doses in the country at a pre-fixed price.
"The justification for this policy has been adducedin a bid to spur competition which would attract more private manufacturersthat could eventually drive down prices. Prima facie, the only room fornegotiation with the two vaccine manufacturers (Bharat Biotech and SerumInsititute of India) was on price and quantity, both of which have been pre-fixedby the Central government. This casts serious doubts on UoI's justification forenabling higher prices as a competitive measure," it said.
The bench contended that if the Centre's uniquemonopolistic buyer position is the only reason for it receiving vaccines at amuch lower rate from manufacturers, it is important for the court to examinethe rationality of the existing liberalised vaccination policy against Article14 of the Constitution, since it could place severe burdens, particularly on states/UTssuffering from financial distress.
The judgment was passed in the suo moto case initiated bytop court to deal with issues relating to Covid-19 management in the country.On May 31, the Supreme Court had shot a volley of tough questions at Centre inconnection with its Covid vaccine policy, and flagged various flaws: shortageof vaccine doses, pricing issues, registration for vaccination, and lack ofvaccine, especially for the rural areas in the country.