Plea Seeking Re-Vaccination For Those Who Took Sputnik-V Vaccine : Supreme Court Asks Petitioner To Move Representation Before Centre

However, the bench of Justices DY Chandrachud and Surya Kant granted the petitioner liberty to move a representation before the Union Ministry of Health and Family Welfare.

"The Court has been moved under Article 32 without a demand for justice being made before the competent authority. The safety and efficacy of the measure requires a careful and calibrated scientific assessment. Hence, the petitioner is permitted to highlight the hardship which is being faced by him and perhaps, by similarly placed other individuals, by moving a representation before the Union Ministry of Health and Family Welfare. The petitioner is granted liberty to do so. The MOH & FW is requested to consider it appropriately bearing in mind all relevant aspects with reasonable expedition," the bench said in its order.

It was stated in the petition the petitioner was vaccinated with the Sputnik-V vaccine, but, since it has not been approved by the World Health Organization, he was unable to travel abroad.

"The present policy, a person is not allowed/ permitted to get re-vaccinated with any other approved vaccines after having been fully vaccinated with Sputnik V or any other approved vaccine. The COWIN portal, which maintains the vaccination record of all individuals, does not have any provision for revaccination of individuals who have been administered one/two doses of any approved vaccine," the petition stated.

The plea further stated that Sputnik V has not received an Emergency Use Listing (hereinafter referred to as "EUL") from the WHO and that various countries such as the United States of America, Canada, countries forming the European Union, Japan etc. were treating individuals who have been administered with Sputnik V as un-vaccinated individuals who were either not being allowed to travel to the said countries or made to undergo mandatory quarantine.

"Under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, an individual can only be deprived o f his personal liberty in accordance with the procedure established by law. It is stated that, in the instant case, there is no procedure which has been established by law and therefore no restriction or fetter can be imposed upon the Petitioner. Furthermore, procedure established by law means the law prescribed by the Parliament at any given point of time. When the Petitioner was administered with Sputnik V, it had been approved by the Respondents and thus, the Petitioner legitimately and bonafidely believed that the same would also be approved by the WHO and other countries," the plea also stated.

The petitioner was represented by Advocate Manikya Khanna.

Case Title: Tarun Mehta v Union of India & Ors| Writ Petition(s)(Civil) No(s).293/2022

Click Here To Read/Download Order