Stay updated with the latest - Click here to follow us on Instagram
© The Indian Express Pvt Ltd
Tags:
Journalism of Courage
Observing that “persons taking conscious decision not to vaccinate themselves are effectively at a greater risk of contracting and transmitting Covid-19 than vaccinated persons”, the Bombay High Court on Tuesday refused to set aside the Mumbai Port Trust (MPT) circular making it mandatory for employees who have not taken two doses of anti-Covid vaccine to produce negative RT-PCR test every 10 days.
A division bench of Justice S J Kathawalla and Justice Abhay Ahuja on Tuesday passed the verdict on a plea filed by seven MPT employees, majority of them not fully vaccinated against Covid-19, challenging the June 15 circular. The petitioners, through advocate Aditi Saxena, termed the decision “discriminatory between vaccinated and unvaccinated employees”, saying taking jabs was a voluntary act and they cannot be compelled to get vaccinated.
The circular had said that from June 16, the unvaccinated employees will not be permitted to attend office without producing RT-PCR test reports conducted by a recognised hospital at their own expense and employees have to submit fresh RT-PCR report every 10 days.
After perusing material on record, the bench observed, “Given that unvaccinated persons pose a greater risk of transmission of Covid-19 than vaccinated persons, it is reasonable for a large Organization such as the MPT to require a higher degree of checking and monitoring of the Covid-19 status of unvaccinated persons. The requirement for unvaccinated employees to periodically produce RT-PCR test Reports certifying that they are free from Covid19 is therefore a reasonable restriction on the fundamental rights of the Petitioners to carry out their occupation or trade.”
The court added that the petitioners’ demand of not bearing the cost of RT-PCR tests is “untenable”. The bench observed, “We are convinced that persons taking a conscious decision not to vaccinate themselves are effectively deciding to place themselves at a greater risk of contracting and/or transmitting the disease than a vaccinated person. While the Petitioners’ decision not to take the vaccination is well respected, that does not mean that they are ipso facto (by that very fact) entitled to the same treatment as that given to vaccinated persons by the MPT.”
Referring to the demand for free treatment at MPT Hospital in case employees get infected, the bench said that MPT cannot be compelled to do so when it is offering the alternative of free inoculation.
“It is reasonable to contend that persons choosing to place themselves at a significantly higher risk of contracting Covid-19 should also assume the risk of having to pay for Covid-19 treatment in the event of contracting Covid-19,” the bench said and dismissed the plea.
Stay updated with the latest - Click here to follow us on Instagram
