Top News Headlines 3rd Mar 2022: Clinical Trail Data On Adverse Effects Of Covid Vaccine Must Be Made Available To Enable Citizens To Make An Informed Choice: Mandating Vaccines Against Fundamental Rights

Clinical Trail Data On Adverse Effects Of Covid Vaccine Must Be Made Available To Enable Citizens To Make An Informed Choice: Mandating Vaccines Against Fundamental Rights: Sr Adv Prashanth Bhushan To SC

• The Hon’ble Supreme Court (SC or Court), in its final hearing in the plea challenging the constitutionality of Covid-19 vaccine mandate, in the case of Jacob Puliyel v Union of India, has asked the Government to respond whether a person has absolute rights to deny the vaccine.  
• The plea seeks a declaration from the Court that mandating Covid-19 vaccine by way of making it a prerequisite to avail access to services impinges the fundamental rights of citizens.  
• It was argued before the two Judge Bench of Justices Nageshwar L Rao and B R Gavai that the choice of vaccination is solely a personal prerogative of an individual and contended that COVID-19 survivors, equipped with natural antibodies, showed better immunity in comparison to their vaccinated persons.  
• Senior Advocate Prashant Bhushan (Sr. Adv.) appeared on behalf of the Petitioner.  The next hearing is scheduled on 8 March.  
• The Court limited itself to the question whether the policy decision taken by the concerned Government was based on relevant data or arbitrarily executed.  
• The Sr. Adv expressed his concern on the clinical trial data and data on adverse effects of the vaccine not being made available to enable an individual to take an informed decision.  
• Placing reliance on Master Hridaan Kumar Minor v Union of IndiaW.P.(C) 343 of 2019, it was argued that information as to contra-indications must be made available before consent for getting vaccinated was obtained.  He also contended that the Government did not put out any data on phase 3 trials and vaccines for public and scientific scrutiny.  
• Supreme Court’s decision in K Puttaswamy v UOI (2017) 10 SCC 1 and Common Cause v UOI (2018) 5 SCC1 was also highlighted to add weight to the argument that informed consent was indispensable for medical procedures and bodily integrity is an integral part of the right to privacy flowing from Article 21 of the Constitution.  
• He further argued that State Governments were making the vaccination mandatory by adopting direct/ indirect means despite the Central Government’s affidavit clearly stating that the vaccine was optional.  He also stated that these mandates were unconstitutional and at odds with scientific caution and emerging evidence.  
• The Sr. Advocate’s argument rested upon the fact that although vaccines prevent the severity of an illness, they do not, in any manner, prevent its transmission and thus non-vaccinated persons do not pose any public health concern.  He also highlighted that UK and New Zealand have withdrawn vaccine mandates.  
• Relying on various studies and scientific journals, the Sr. Adv submitted that immunity resulting from a natural infection was far more superior than acquired immunity through vaccines and stated that since infected people develop Antibody Dependent Enhancement, vaccinating them could expose them to serious problems.  
• On the mandate by the Indian Certificate of Secondary Education (ICSE) making vaccination mandatory for children to appear for exams, it was submitted that such a precondition was egregious owing to the fact that majority of the children were hardly affected by Covid and the ones vaccinated were showing symptoms of myocarditis post vaccination. 
• Countering the Sr. Advocate’s argument, the Additional Solicitor General (ASG) appearing on behalf of the Government submitted that the claim about children showing myocarditis symptoms was irrelevant because the vaccine administered to them contained either dead or inactive virus.  
• The ASG sought additional for rebuttals since the contentions raised in the written submission of the Petitioner were beyond the issues raised in the Writ Petition.  

Prosecution Is Required To Prove Its Case Beyond Reasonable Doubt; Not Beyond All Iota Of Doubt :SC

• Affirming the order of the High Court of Allahabad, the Hon’ble Supreme Court (SC or Court), in Karan Singh v State of Uttar Pradesh has observed that the prosecution is required to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, and not beyond all iota of doubt.  The appeal was filed against the order of the High Court affirming the sentence of the Trial Court.  
• The appeal arose out of a payment dispute; the Appellant and his accomplices were accused of open firing at the deceased and other members of his group.  The complainant’s brother was shot dead by one of the accused.  Relying on the testimonies of the eye-witnesses, the appellant and his accomplices were sentenced to life imprisonment under Section 302 read with 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).  
• On appeal to the High Court, the order of the Trial Court was upheld and the Court observed that minor discrepancies and/ or improvements/ embellishments were insignificant and ought to be ignored.  
• The Counsel for the Appellant argued that while other evidence was produced, the weapon of crime was never discovered and also submitted that the main injured had himself testified that he had not seen the Appellant at the spot when the incident took place.  It was also contended that the body of the deceased contained pellets fired from another gun and there were no injuries caused by bullets fired from a rifle, which the Appellant carried.  
• He further argued that the Trial Court completely ignored the chain of evidence to wrongly conclude that the accused persons were guilty, particularly the Appellant, Karan Singh.  
• He contended that as per the established law, the doctrine of severability does not apply in the case of a statement of a witness in a criminal trial.  Either the whole statement has to be discarded by declaring the witness hostile or else the entire statement has to be relied upon.  
• The Appellant placed reliance on Palvinder Kaur v State of Punjab, AIR 1952 SC 354 and Hanumant Govind Nargundkar v State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1952 SC 343 to support his arguments.  
• The Counsel for the prosecution argued that while there were minor discrepancies in the statement of the eye-witnesses all material particulars have been corroborated.  He placed reliance on Narayan Chetanram Chaudhary and Another v State of Maharashtra, AIR 2000 SC 3352 to support his argument.  
• Furthermore, the Prosecution submitted that the account of the witnesses tallied with the submission of the Doctor examining the witness.  Thus, in the light of the above, the conviction must be upheld.  
• Referring to various legal precedents wherein it was held that Court must not give undue importance to omissions, contradictions/ discrepancies which do not form part of the principal matter, and shake the basic version of the prosecution witness, the Court held that it saw no reason to reverse the order of the Trail Court and the High Court.  
• Dismissing the appeal, the Court also observed that the death of the other accused could be a ground for acquittal of the Appellant.  

Transgender Persons Must Be Provided A Separate Quota And Not Clubbed with Female Quota: Madras HC

• Allowing the writ petition in the case of Saratha v State of Tamil Nadu, the Hon’ble High Court of Madras (HC) held that the State of Tamil Nadu’s decision to club the quota of transgender persons identifying themselves as ‘females’ together with the 30% reservation for women was in violation of Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution and the direction of the Supreme Court contained in National Legal Services Authority v UOI.  
• The writ was filed by Transgenders/ Third gender persons (TGs) seeking reservations, relaxations and concessions for the purpose of considering their candidatures in the recruitment process for the posts of Grade-II Police Constables and the like, conducted by the Tamil Nadu Uniform Services Recruitment Board (TNUSRB).  
• The Petitioners submitted that the concessions and relaxations provided to them in the aforementioned recruitment process were inconsistent with the orders passed by the Apex Court and amounted to hostile discrimination.  
• Hearing the petition, the HC strongly recommended the provision of a special reservation of a specified percentage for TGs in public employments in addition to the relaxations and concessions extended to the socially and economically backward classes (EBCs).  
• The Single Judge Bench of the HC quashed the disqualification of the petitioners from the recruitment process and directed the agency to treat all the petitioners qualified in the initial selection process, including the written examination with a direction to conduct physical measurement tests, endurance tests and physical efficiency tests, in accordance with the relaxed norms applicable for women candidates, for appointing them as Grade-II constables.  
• The Judge, examining the judgment in Chairman, Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board v Aradhana, further held that relaxation in age limit (from 29 to 45 years) for applying to the post could not be construed as ‘reservation’.  
• On the issue of depriving transgender persons who recognised as ‘male’ from physical relaxations provided to female candidates, the Court observed that the same was also unconstitutional and failure to provide reservation to transgenders in the ‘male’ category was illegal and in violation of the NALSA (Supra) judgement.  
• The Court observed that making the TGs identifying as ‘male’ to compete with the general candidates in the remaining 70% category, despite possessing the “Third Gender” certificate was a violation of their rights and unconstitutional.