IN RE: DISTRIBUTION OF ESSENTIAL SUPPLIES AND SERVICES DURING PANDEMIC versus .

Citation: [2021] 5 S.C.R. 268 · Decided: 31-05-2021 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, L. NAGESWARA RAO, S. RAVINDRA BHAT · Disposal: Directions issued

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
268
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 5 S.C.R.
   [2021] 5 S.C.R. 268
268
IN RE: DISTRIBUTION OF ESSENTIAL SUPPLIES AND
SERVICES DURING PANDEMIC
(Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No. 3 of 2021)
MAY 31, 2021
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD,
L NAGESWARA RAO AND S RAVINDRA BHAT, JJ.]
COVID-19 pandemic:
Suo Motu writ petition – Cognizance of the Management of
the Covid -19 pandemic during the second wave –Gradual recession
of the second wave – In view thereof, issues as regards Central
Government’s Liberalised Vaccination Policy, vaccine distribution,
vaccine procurement process, and the augmentation of vaccine
availability, taken up – With respect to the vaccine distribution
between different age-groups, the policy of the Central Government
conducting free vaccinations for persons above age of 45 years
and frontline/healthcare workers, and paid vaccinations by the State/
UT Governments and private hospitals for persons between 18-44
years, prima facie arbitrary and irrational – With regard to
procurement process, the Liberalised Vaccination Policy, may not
be able to yield the desired results, and the basis of pro rata allocation
to State Governments also not clear, thus, Central Government to
specify as to how they would deal with the concern – As regards
augmentation of vaccine production/availability, Union of India to
undertake a fresh review of its vaccination policy – In view thereof,
issuance of direction to Union of India to file affidavit addressing
the issues with regard to the vaccination policy: vaccine procurement
and distribution among different categories of the population, effects
of vaccination by private hospitals under the liberalized vaccination
policy, basis and impact of differential pricing, vaccine logistics,
digital divide – Affidavit to provide information on the percentage
of population that has been vaccinated with one dose and both
doses; complete data on purchase of COVID-19 vaccines till date
(Covaxin, Covishield and Sputnik V), and an outline for vaccinating
the remaining population in phases 1, 2 and 3; and the steps taken
by the Central Government to ensure availability of drug for
mucormycosis – Further, direction to Union of India to attach copies
of relevant papers and file notations perused while preparing
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
269
vaccination policy – Also, the State/UT governments to clarify their
position and policies as regards providing free vaccination to the
population within their territories.
Judicial review – Exercise of, over the management of the
COVID-19 pandemic – Held: Policy-making continues to be in the
sole domain of the executive – However, separation of powers does
not result in courts lacking jurisdiction in conducting a judicial
review of these policies – Constitution does not envisage courts to
be silent spectators when constitutional rights of citizens are
infringed by executive policies – Judicial review and soliciting
constitutional justification for policies formulated by the executive
is an essential function, which the courts are entrusted to perform –
Judiciary has also recognized that constitutional scrutiny is
transformed during such public health emergencies – In grappling
with the second wave of the pandemic, this Court does not intend to
second-guess the wisdom of the executive – However, it continues
to exercise jurisdiction to determine if the chosen policy measure
conforms to the standards of reasonableness, militates against
manifest arbitrariness and protects the right to life of all persons –
Court is presently assuming a dialogic jurisdiction – Hence, the
Court would, under the auspices of an open court judicial process,
conduct deliberations with the executive where justifications for
existing policies would be elicited and evaluated to assess whether
they survive constitutional scrutiny.
Union of India vs Rakesh Malhotra and another SLP (Civil)
(Diary) No 11622 of 2021; DDA v. Joint Action Committee
(2008) 2 SCC 672 : [2007] 13 SCR 811; Gujarat Mazdoor
Sabha v. State of Gujarat AIR 2020 SC 4601 – referred
to.
Jacobson v. Massachusetts 197 U.S. 11 (1905); Roman
Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn, New York v. Cuomo, 592
U.S., 141 S. Ct. 63; Calvary Chapel Dayton Valley v.
Steve Sisolak, Governor of Nevada, et al, 140 S.Ct.
2603 – referred to.
Sandra Fredman, “Adjudication as Accountability: A
Deliberative Approach” in Nicholas Bamforth and Peter
Leyland (eds), Accountability in the Contemporary
IN RE: DISTRIBUTION OF ESSENTIAL SUPPLIES AND
SERVIC

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.