Why could the Supreme Court hear a petition seeking amendments to the Government of India’s COVID-19 policy?
Why could the Supreme Court hear a petition seeking amendments to the Government of India’s COVID-19 policy?
The Supreme Court recently dismissed a petition seeking amendments to the Government of India’s COVID-19 policy to allow voluntary re-vaccination of persons vaccinated with Sputnik V. The petitioner, the recipient of Sputnik V, is unable to go abroad. The World Health Organization (WHO) had not yet certified Sputnik V. on its approved list of vaccines. The petitioner was directed to make a representation in this regard before the Union Ministry of Health and Family Welfare.
constitutional right to travel abroad
The court, while dismissing the writ petition, did not fully appreciate the existing constitutional jurisprudence. The right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution does not merely have a black and white legal meaning. Undoubtedly speaking of a person’s right to live, it means much more than a person’s right to live. One must embrace all aspects of life to live fully. The right to live a full and dignified life is known as the right to life.
In Maneka Gandhi Vs Union of India (1978), the Supreme Court held that “personal liberty” in Article 21 has a “broad dimension”, which includes “the various kinds of rights which constitute the personal liberty of man”. in before Satwant Singh Sahni Vs. D. Ramaratnam Assistant Passport Officer (1967), the right to travel abroad was read as an intrinsic part of Article 21. The Supreme Court has repeatedly reiterated this right to travel abroad. As recently as 2020, the Supreme Court, in Parvez Noordeen Lokhandwala v State of Maharashtra, held that the right to travel abroad is a part of the fundamental right to dignity and personal liberty. Interestingly, in the Supreme Court Satish Chandra Verma Vs Union Of Indiaa (2019), while reiterating the right to travel abroad, went on to equate it as a basic and real human right to marry and have a family. Thus, there is no doubt that it is established jurisprudence that an Indian citizen has the freedom to move anywhere, work anywhere and live anywhere. The only way to prohibit it is if the law forbids someone to do so. Such a law would also be subject to court scrutiny under the constitutional standards of ‘rationality’. This well-established Indian jurisprudence of the right to travel abroad finds support in international law as well. Article 12 of the 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights guarantees freedom of movement, including the right of people to choose their residence, leave and return.
negative attitude towards russia
In the light of the above, the Supreme Court should have appreciated the fact that there is no law barring an Indian citizen from traveling abroad for work, education or leisure. He should have equally appreciated the negative views on Russia in the context of the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Russian manufactured products, including vaccines, do not find acceptance in most parts of the world. Sputnik V was already facing a tough rollout. Sanctions against Russia have further hindered the use and distribution of the vaccine. Sputnik V is not accepted as valid proof of immunity in the UK and US; the European Union (EU) has severe restrictions for EU and non-EU citizens. Thus, millions of Indians who want to travel to these countries cannot do so. For all practical purposes, a person who has been vaccinated with Sputink V is considered unvaccinated.
Apart from the global opinion against the Sputnik V vaccine, the Indian immunization program has compounded the problem. Despite the National COVID Vaccination Program in India being based on epidemiological and scientific research, WHO recommendations and international practices, the COVID-19 policy by the government has not been changed to allow voluntary re-vaccination of individuals who have received Sputnik. V is obtained. Want to get vaccinated and want to go abroad. Even CoWIN prohibits any re-vaccination of individuals with a different vaccine after giving one or two doses. Last year, an NRI employee in a Saudi Arabian company from Kerala was unable to return to his job because he was given Covaxin, which was not yet authorized in the Gulf country. The issue was brought up before the Kerala High Court which held that the fundamental rights of citizens were being violated and their right to movement was being restricted.
The Supreme Court should have appreciated the right of an Indian to travel abroad emanating from the settled jurisprudence as well as the prevailing global opinion against Russia. Further, it should take into account the concerns expressed by the High Court of Kerala and allow re-vaccination of all persons vaccinated with Sputnik who wish to travel abroad.
Aditya Manubarwala is an Advocate practicing in Supreme Court and Bombay High Court.