new Delhi: The Center on Tuesday clarified in the Supreme Court that it has not made COVID-19 vaccines mandatory and only said that vaccination should be 100 per cent.
Clarification of Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre, Tamil Nadu Additional Solicitor General Amit Anand Tiwari told a bench of Justices L Nageswara Rao and BR Gavai that the central government had issued a mandate to us that 100 per cent people should be vaccinated.
“Millord’s a clarification…that the state of Tamil Nadu said they have made it mandatory because the center said 100 per cent vaccination. It is not a mandate. The center has not issued any mandate, the stand of the center is that it There should be 100 per cent but it is not a mandate,” Mehta told the apex court, which sought directions for disclosure of data on clinical trials of COVID-19 vaccines and post-pocket cases. But kept my order safe.
At the outset, Tewari submitted that Tamil Nadu has come up with a vaccination mandate as vaccination against COVID-19 is necessary to prevent severe disease in the population.
He said that the vaccination mandate is in the larger public interest with a view to providing protection against high epidemics.
“I have submitted the expert report. Non-vaccinated people cause mutation of the virus … Where there is a possibility that it will infect others or if there is a possibility of spreading, we have the power to issue such mandates.” .. There is enough evidence to show that vaccines prevent serious disease.
“It is further submitted that these provisions have also been made to vaccinate the public to prevent the spread of disease. They are passed not only for the safety of the person concerned but also to ensure the safety of others. serve a greater purpose,” he said.
The counsel for the Maharashtra government also upheld the orders of the state government which made it mandatory to take COVID vaccines to reach public areas.
Vaccine manufacturers Bharat Biotech Ltd and Serum Institute of India also opposed the petition and said that the petition which is in public interest can be dismissed for private purpose with exemplary costs and in between vaccine hesitation and attempt to create public frenzy. can be done. from an unprecedented global pandemic.
Bharat Biotech Ltd’s counsel submitted that it has widely published the findings of clinical trials in publicly available reputed peer-reviewed journals and are available on its website.
“Petitioners’ contention that the respondent company has not published Phase 3 clinical trial data in a peer-reviewed journal is unfounded because the respondent has published major results in the most respected and peer-reviewed journal in the field. and presented the main findings. Medicine, The Lancet,” submitted the counsel for Bharat Biotech Ltd.
Counsel for Serum Institute of India also opposed the petitioner’s plea for disclosure.
“In principle they cannot ask for the data. My data is with the regulator… There is no whereabouts for the petitioner. Even under RTI they have to show that there is public interest. I submit that It is a fruitless petition,” Serum’s lawyer said.
The Center had earlier told the apex court that all documents related to COVID-19 vaccines and their compositions were available in the public domain, and the vaccine had proved to be very effective and safe.
It had earlier told the apex court that till March 13 this year, a total of over 180 crore doses of COVID-19 vaccines had been administered in the country, and 77,314 adverse events, which comes to 0.004 per cent, were reported.
The government had said that over 8.91 crore doses of Covaxin vaccine were administered in the age group of 15-18 years as on March 12, and the number of Adverse Events After Immunization (AEFI) was 1,739 minor, 81 severe and six severe. ,
It had said that both the vaccines – Covaxin and Covishield – generate antibodies with minimal probability of initiating any adverse event.
Advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for the petitioner, had earlier argued that whether or not to vaccinate is an individual decision, and in the absence of informed consent, compulsory vaccination was unconstitutional.
The top court was hearing a petition filed by Dr Jacob Puliel, a former member of the National Technical Advisory Group on Immunization, who has sought a direction to disclose post-vaccination data with respect to adverse events. PTI PKS VN VN
(Disclaimer: This story has been published as part of an auto-generated Syndicate wire feed. Headline or body have not been edited by ABP Live.)
See below health equipment-
Calculate your body mass index (BMI)