No separate ‘national plan’ for Covid under Disaster Management Act: Centre to HC
The Centre also said there is no separate “national plan” under Disaster Management Act, 2005, framed after the onset of pandemic, while there is a national plan of 2019 for preventing epidemic, which is accepted by the Supreme Court.
2 min read
Bombay High Court (File)The Union government on Friday told the Bombay High Court that it has not framed any policy which discriminates between the vaccinated and unvaccinated persons by making inoculation mandatory. “Therefore, the question of whether the state government’s decision to allow only fully vaccinated persons to use public transport violates the Centre’s guidelines does not arise,” it said.
The Centre also said there is no separate “national plan” under Disaster Management Act, 2005, framed after the onset of pandemic, while there is a national plan of 2019 for preventing epidemic, which is accepted by the Supreme Court.
A division bench of Chief Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Makarand S Karnik on January 20 sought to know from the Centre to respond to state government’s query as to whether there was a national plan under DM Act to combat Covid and if it differentiates between vaccinated and unvaccinated persons for permitting them to avail public transport during the pandemic. The bench is hearing pleas filed by activists Feroze Mithiborwala and Yohan Tengra, through advocates Tanveer Nizam and Nilesh Ojha, respectively, which challenged state’s SOPs, by seeking that all people in MMR be allowed to travel by local trains, irrespective of their vaccination status.
“It is also clarified that the Centre has not framed any policy or guideline as to whether it is mandatory to get vaccinated. But we have said it is in larger good and desirable that majority of population gets vaccinated,” Additional Solicitor General Anil Singh for the Centre said.
Representing the state government, senior advocate Anil Anturkar submitted that the decision was taken as the Constitution permits reasonable restrictions in the “interest of general public”. “Periodical review is an inbuilt assurance that the decision cannot be arbitrary and it is a temporary measure.”
The bench posted further hearing to Monday, February 7.
You May Like
Photos
