It’s age-old controversy, says Supreme Court on adverse effects versus benefits of vaccination

The Supreme Court on Monday refused to entertain a plea challenging vaccine mandates issued by the Ahmedabad Municipal Commissioner for entry in public places saying why can’t petitioners get vaccinated.

The top court said that every vaccination has cost benefits and it is an age-old controversy right since the beginning of the vaccination process.

A bench of Justices DY Chandrachud and Surya Kant said, “At this particular time, your clients must see the merit in the benefit which is flowing to the wider community. We don’t think we should exercise our jurisdiction under Article 136 of the constitution”.

The bench said, “Every vaccine has cost benefits. It’s an age-old controversy since the beginning of vaccination. Even during the earliest vaccination, you would find this problem. You should also see the benefits of vaccination to society”.

Justice Chandrachud said, “Why are you putting spoke in the wheel and why don’t you get yourself vaccinated? Why are you against vaccination”.

Advocate M Kotwal, appearing for petitioner Nishant Babubhai Prajapati, said that the municipal commissioner has no authority and jurisdiction to issue any vaccine mandate and it is up to the state government to issue the notification in this regard.

The bench said, “Ultimately it is the municipal commissioner who is in charge of the public places in the city whether its park or marketplace. He has to ensure the safety of the residents. Anyway, you are under Article 136, we would not interfere”.

The counsel said that he is concerned with the adverse effects of vaccination and referred to a plea pending in the top court in this regard.

The top court dismissed the appeal against an order of the Gujarat High Court upholding a circular issued by the Ahmedabad Municipal Commissioner denying entry of people to certain public places, who are not fully vaccinated with COVID vaccines.