Top
Begin typing your search above and press return to search.
News Updates

Primary Objective Of Court Is To Render Justice, Not To Uphold Technicalities: Kerala High Court

Hannah M Varghese
3 Sep 2021 2:18 PM GMT
Primary Objective Of Court Is To Render Justice, Not To Uphold Technicalities: Kerala High Court
x

The Kerala High Court on Friday while hearing the plea seeking early administration of the second dose of the Covishield vaccine observed that the primary duty of the Court is to render justice and not to uphold technicalities. Justice P.B. Suresh Kumar commented so while responding to the argument posed by the respondent that a writ petition seeking relief of mandamus will not stand...

Your free access to Live Law has expired
To read the article, get a premium account.
    Your Subscription Supports Independent Journalism
Subscription starts from
599+GST
(For 6 Months)
Premium account gives you:
  • Unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments.
  • Reading experience of Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.
Already a subscriber?

The Kerala High Court on Friday while hearing the plea seeking early administration of the second dose of the Covishield vaccine observed that the primary duty of the Court is to render justice and not to uphold technicalities. 

Justice P.B. Suresh Kumar commented so while responding to the argument posed by the respondent that a writ petition seeking relief of mandamus will not stand if a representation is not made in the matter.

Advocate Blaze K Jose representing the petitioner relied on paragraph 7 of the counter affidavit submitted by the respondent where it was admitted that the Government had relaxed the 84 days interval for certain beneficiaries. 

"Here, a group of individuals are allowed to have an exemption. This is discrimination. The State can put restrictions on the rights of individuals but they should pass the test of reasonableness."

The Court opined that as long as the petitioner was urging a relief under Article 21, this argument will not stand since there are no reasonable restrictions in Article 21; that falls under Article 19.

"There will be two opinions if we go to the test of reasonableness. The government can always tilt the balance of inconvenience in favour of the best interest of the larger public, " the Bench remarked.

The petition also put forward an argument that there is no scientific evidence to prove that administering the second dose of the vaccine after an interval of 84 days would completely make an individual immune from the virus. The vaccine manufacturers themselves do not have any objection to a dose interval of 28 days.

The respondent argued that none of the workers of the petitioner company had approached the Government before the institution of the writ petition and that the petitioner cannot seek a mandamus at such a juncture. 

To this, the Court responded as such:

"A Court cannot dismiss a petition seeking a mandamus merely on the ground that no representation was done. The main objective of the Court is to render justice not to uphold technicalities. The Institution will be no more if we dismiss every petition for lack of technical accuracy. Our duty is to uphold the faith of the public in the judiciary." 

The development ensued in a plea filed by Kitex stating that it had already vaccinated more than 5,000 of its workers with the first dose and had arranged for the second dose but was unable to administer the same due to the restriction of the prescribed gap of 84 days between the two jabs.

The Court reserved its orders in the matter. 

Case Title: Kitex Garments Ltd v. State of Kerala

Next Story
Share it