On Tuesday, the government told the Supreme Court that it hasn’t made COVID-19 vaccines mandatory but should be given to everyone. It only said that everyone should be vaccinated 100% of the time.
The clarification came from Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, who was representing the government of India. It came after a lawyer for the state of Tamil Nadu told a court that the federal government had told us that all of the people in the state should be vaccinated.
“Milords, one more thing. The State of Tamil Nadu said that they made it mandatory for everyone because the Center said 100% vaccination.” This is not a law. Mr. Mehta told the Supreme Court: “The government has not given us a mandate, but the government’s position is that it should be 100%, but it is not a mandate.”
READ MORE: Centre wants report; BJP to send a team to Bengal after 8 die: 10 Facts.
Tiwari said that the state of Tamil Nadu has made it a requirement for everyone to get vaccinated against COVID-19, which can cause serious illness in people.
He said that the vaccination requirement is in the general public’s best interest because it will protect the country from more significant epidemics.
“I have sent in expert reports.” People who haven’t been vaccinated are the reason viruses change. Where there is a chance that it could spread to other people or get in the way, we have the power to make people do what we want them to do. There is enough evidence to show that vaccines keep people from getting very sick.
“It is also said that these rules are meant to get people vaccinated to stop the spread of disease.” They are not only for the safety of the person who needs them but also for the safety of everyone else, he said.
The lawyer for the Maharashtra government also defended the state’s orders that people get Covid vaccines before they can go into public places.
Bharat Biotech Ltd and Serum Institute of India also argued against the petition. They said the petition, which claimed to be in the public interest, should be dismissed with exemplary costs because it was based on a private motive and tried to make people hesitant about vaccines in the middle of a global pandemic.
The lawyer for Bharat Biotech Ltd said that the company had written a lot about its clinical trials in well-known, peer-reviewed journals available to the public and on its website.
If you believe that Bharat Biotech Ltd has not published Phase 3 clinical trial data in a peer-reviewed journal, your lawyer says that’s not true. “The Respondent Company has submitted the key results and main findings in one of medicine’s most reputable and peer-reviewed journals, THE LANCET,” the lawyer says.
The lawyer for the Serum Institute of India also didn’t like the petitioner’s request for information to be made public.
As a rule, they can’t ask for data. In the regulator’s hands, I have my data. The petitioner doesn’t have a place to stay. Even under the RTI, they have to show public interest in what they do. Serum Institute’s lawyer told the court that the petition wouldn’t work.
COVID-19 vaccines and their compositions were already available in the public domain; the government told the Supreme Court. The vaccine is very effective and safe.
More than 180 million doses of the COVID-19 vaccine have been given in the country so far this year, and 77,314 people have had problems. That’s 0.04% of the vaccines.
The government said there were 8.91 million doses of the Covaxin vaccine given to people between the ages of 15 and 18 as of March 12. There were 1,739 minor, 81 serious, and six severe adverse events (AEFI) after the vaccine.
Both vaccines, Covaxin and Covishield, make antibodies with a meager chance of having side effects.
Advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for the petitioner, previously argued that vaccination is a personal choice and that mandatory vaccination is unconstitutional without informed consent.
The Supreme Court was hearing a petition filed by Dr. Jacob Puliyel, a former member of the National Technical Advisory Group on Immunization, who requested that the court also order post-vaccination adverse event data disclosure.
