Delhi High Court Dismisses Plea Seeking Reduction In Dosage Interval Of Covishield Vaccine To 8 Weeks

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

15 July 2021 4:16 PM GMT

  • Delhi High Court Dismisses Plea Seeking Reduction In Dosage Interval Of Covishield Vaccine To 8 Weeks

    The Delhi High Court today dismissed a Public Interest Litigation [PIL] seeking reduction of the present 12-16 week interval for administration of second dose of Covishield vaccine. The Petitioner, a doctor by profession, had sought reduction of the said period to 8 weeks, for persons over 50 years of age and those having comorbidities."Health Experts come here every day. We cannot issue...

    The Delhi High Court today dismissed a Public Interest Litigation [PIL] seeking reduction of the present 12-16 week interval for administration of second dose of Covishield vaccine. The Petitioner, a doctor by profession, had sought reduction of the said period to 8 weeks, for persons over 50 years of age and those having comorbidities.

    "Health Experts come here every day. We cannot issue new guidelines every day," Chief Justice DN Patel remarked.

    The Petitioner, Dr. Siddharth De, represented by Advocate Kuldeep Jauhari, had relied on the Vaccine Surveillance Report dated May 27, 2021, issued by the Public Health Department, England. The Report notes on vaccine effectiveness as follows,

    "Several studies of vaccine effectiveness have been conducted in the UK which indicates that a single dose of either vaccine is between 55 and 70% effective against the symptomatic disease, with higher levels of protection against severe disease including hospitalization and death. Additional protection is seen after a second dose. There is now also evidence from a number of studies that the vaccines are effective at protecting against infection and transmission."

    The Bench, also comprising of Justice Jyoti Singh, had questioned the doctor-petitioner and noted,

    "Are you aware of any procedure on how doses are fixed? Who is fixing the doses? We will have to alter the procedure if at all we have the power to do so," the Bench observed.

    It noted that the Petitioner had not been able to satisfy the Court as to the prayer sought and thus, expressed inclination to dismiss the matter with cost"Let alone issuance of a notice; we are inclined to dismiss the petitions with costs," the Bench observed.

    At this juncture, Jauhari claimed that the PIL is an honest one. However, the Court responded that dismissal with cost is not a 'certificate of dishonesty'.

    The matter was finally dismissed as withdrawn, and no costs were imposed.

    Case Title: Dr. Siddhartha Dey v. Union of India

    Next Story