Students and school teachers challenged vaccination-linked restrictions on access to educational institutions. The court dismissed both petitions, holding that the right to refuse medical treatment did not invalidate the challenged pandemic measures or make their advantages for vaccinated persons discriminatory.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR
WEDNESDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2021 / 28TH ASWINA,
1943
WP(C) NO. 21120 OF 2021
PETITIONERS:
AGED 42 YEARS, D/O.ABDUL KAREEM, RESIDING AT PARAPPAN HOUSE, KALLIDUMBU, EDAVANNA POST, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-676 541.
2
W.P.(C) Nos.21120 & 21463 of 2021
BY ADVS.
R.O.MUHAMED SHEMEEM NASEEHA BEEGUM P.S.
RESPONDENT/S:
2 THE CHAIRMAN, STATE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE, KERALA STATE DISASTER MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 001.
ASG.P.VIJAYAKUMAR
SRI.V.MANU SPL GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20.10.2021, ALONG WITH WP(C).21463/2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
3
W.P.(C) Nos.21120 & 21463 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2021 / 28TH ASWINA,
1943
WP(C) NO. 21463 OF 2021
PETITIONER/S:
AGED 19 YEARS
D/O. MUJEEB RAHMAN, RESIDING AT KANICHATHVALAPPIL HOUSE, POST KOKKUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-679 591.
S/O. SANIL KUMAR, RESIDING AT VALIYAVEETTIL THEKKETHIL, MANALVAYAL (PO), PULPALLY, (VIA), IRULAM, WAYANAD DISTRICT, PIN-673 579.
D/O. V.ABDUL JALEEL, RESIDING AT VALAN HOUSE, PAITHINIPARAMBU, DOWN HILL, MALAPPURAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-676 519.
D/O ANVARTHOTTATHIL, RESIDING AT THOTTATHIL HOUSE, CHELARI, THENHIPALAM POST, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-673 636.
AGED 22 YEARS, D/O. MOHAMMED ASHRAF C., RESIDING AT CRYSTAL VILLA, KALIKKAL ROAD, PAYANGADI (RS) POST, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN-670 358.
4
W.P.(C) Nos.21120 & 21463 of 2021
6 FATHIMATHU ZAHRA V.M. AGED 19 YEARS, D/O. MUHAMMED ASHARAF VK, RESIDING AT VADAVANAKUDY HOUSE, PONJASSERY (PO), ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-683 547.
7 NAJIHA
AGED 19 YEARS, S/O. ABOOBACKER, RESIDING AT KOORITHODI HOUSE, KURUVAMBALAM (PO), MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-679 338.
D/O. CHANDRAN, K.S. RESIDING AT KEEZHETHUPARAYIL HOUSE, KEERAMPARA, KEERAMPARA POST, PUNNEKKADU, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-686 681
BY ADVS.
R.O.MUHAMED SHEMEEM NASEEHA BEEGUM P.S.
RESPONDENT/S:
2 THE CHAIRMAN
STATE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE, KERALA STATE DISASTER MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY, GOVERNMENT STATE SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 001.
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE, GOVERNMENT STATE SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 001.
W.P.(C) Nos.21120 & 21463 of 2021
5
ASG.P.VIJAYAKUMAR SRI.V.MANU SPL GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20.10.2021, ALONG WITH WP(C).21120/2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
6
W.P.(C) Nos.21120 & 21463 of 2021
P.B.SURESH KUMAR, J.
W.P.(C) Nos.21120 and 21463 of 2021
Dated this the 20th day of October, 2021
J U D G M E N T
The questions involved in these writ petitions are identical and they are, therefore, disposed of by this common judgment. Parties and documents are referred to in this judgment, unless otherwise mentioned, as they appear in W.P. (C) No.21463 of 2021.
2 . On 17.09.2021, t he Government in the Higher
Education Department, having regard to the fact that the restrictions imposed in connection with the prevention of Covid-19 pandemic have been substantially relaxed, ordered to
open the higher education institutions including professional colleges in the State with effect from 04.10.2021 for the final
W.P.(C) Nos.21120 & 21463 of 2021
7
year graduate students and post graduate students subject to the conditions stipulated therein. In the light of the said Government Order, the Director of Collegiate Education, the first respondent, issued Ext.P1 circular on 01.10.2021 directing that students, teachers and other staff members who have taken two doses of Covid-19 vaccine or one dose of the vaccine before two weeks and those who have recovered from Covid-19 infection within the previous 90 days, shall be permitted to enter the educational institutions and their hostels. It is clarified, however, in Ext.P1 circular that those who are unable to take the vaccine on account of the health issues can also enter the educational institutions and their hostels on production of medical certificates, indicating their inability to take the vaccine.
3 . On 02.10.2021, the second respondent, the
Chairman of the Executive Committee of the State Disaster Management Authority issued Ext.P2 order in exercise of the powers under Section 20(3) of the Disaster Management Act,
8
W.P.(C) Nos.21120 & 21463 of 2021
2005 directing, among others, that regular classes in colleges and training institutions can be commenced with effect from 18.10.2021 for students who have taken two doses of the vaccine by engaging teachers/trainers/other staff who have taken two doses of the vaccine.
4 . The petitioners are students undergoing education in various colleges in the State. They have taken an informed decision not to take the vaccine fearing adverse side effects. It is stated by the petitioners that the vaccine is not compulsory and the right to life guaranteed to them under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, especially the right to privacy available to the petitioners also gives them freedom to abstain from taking the vaccine. In the circumstances, according to the petitioners, Ext.P1 circular of the first respondent and Ext.P2 order of the second respondent are illegal and unconstitutional. The petitioners, therefore, seek orders quashing Ext.P1 circular and Ext.P2 order to the extent they restrict the students from continuing their education in the
9
W.P.(C) Nos.21120 & 21463 of 2021
colleges, when the colleges reopen.
5 . W.P.(C) No.21120 of 2021 is a writ petition
instituted by a few school teachers in the State challenging a circular issued by the Director of General Education, the sixth respondent in the said writ petition, identical to Ext.P1 circular, insisting the teachers and other staff members of the schools in the State to take two doses or at least one dose of the vaccine on or before 16.09.2021. The grounds urged by the petitioners in this writ petition are identical to the grounds urged by the petitioners in W.P.(C) No.21463 of 2021. In addition, the petitioners in this case also allege that the said circular of the sixth respondent infringes the fundamental right guaranteed to the petitioners under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.
6 . Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as also the learned Government Pleader.
7 . The learned counsel for the petitioners reiterated the case in the writ petitions and relied on the decisions of the Apex Court in K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of
10
W.P.(C) Nos.21120 & 21463 of 2021
India , (2017) 10 SCC 1 and Aruna Ramachandra Shanbaug
v. Union of India , (2011) 4 SCC 454, in support of the same.
8 . Per contra, the learned Government Pleader contended at the outset that the questions raised by the petitioners in the writ petitions are covered against them by the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in W.P.(C) Nos.16614 of 2021 and 17274 of 2021. As regards the merits of the matter, it was argued by the learned Government Pleader that no fundamental right is absolute and in the interest of general public, reasonable restrictions can be imposed by the Government. According to the learned Government Pleader, the measures taken in terms of the impugned order and circulars are on ly those ta ken in public interest to suppress the spread of Covid-19. It was also argued by the learned Government Pleader that the rights of individuals are always subservient to public interest and the directions contained in the impugned order and circulars being directions issued in public interest, they cannot be impugned on the ground of
11
W.P.(C) Nos.21120 & 21463 of 2021
violation of fundamental rights of the individuals.
9 . I have considered the arguments of the learned
counsel for the parties on either side.
10. The decision of the Division Bench of this Court
cited by the learned Government Pleader is a decision on two writ petitions instituted challenging, among others, the decisions of the competent authorities permitting entry in public places for those who have taken the vaccine. The case of the petitioners in the said writ petitions was that the impugned decisions are discriminatory and that persons who are vaccinated a nd unvaccinated a re to be treated alike. Prayers (i), (ii) and (vii) in W.P.(C) No.16614 of 2021 read thus :
“(i) Issue a writ of mandamus or any appropriate writ or direction or an order to the State of Kerala, Represented by Secretary, Health & Family Welfare Department, Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram, (respondent No.2), and/or other appropriate authorities, to amend the guidelines issued by the 2nd respondent dated 4.8.2021 in G.O.(Rt.) No. 567/2021/DMD, inter alia , removing the following paragraphs:
(4) a person (workers/visitor) can enter shops, markets, banks, public and private offices,
12
W.P.(C) Nos.21120 & 21463 of 2021
financial institutions, industries, factories, open tourist places, and all other institutions only if he/she is vaccinated with the first dose of Covid vaccine at least two weeks before or shall have an RTPCR negative certificate taken within 72 hours or he/she has been recovered from Covid 19 illness a month before.”
(ii) To issue a writ of mandamus or any appropriate writ or direction or order to the respondents and/or other relevant authorities not to discriminate citizens between vaccinated and not vaccinated as Government cannot compel a citizen to get vaccinated, in violation of the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution.
(vii) Issue a writ of certiorari or such other appropriate writ, order or direction to set aside Exhibit-P1 guidelines/ order, as it violates Right to Life, Right to Livelihood and Freedom of Profession of the citizens.
Similarly, prayers (i), (iii) and (vi) in W.P.(C) No.17274 of 2021
read thus :
“(i) Issue a writ of certiorari, or any other appropriate writ calling for the records leading to Exhibit-P2 Government order and clause (iv) thereof, insofar as it is violative of Article 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
13
W.P.(C) Nos.21120 & 21463 of 2021
(iii) Declare that clause (iv) of Exhibit-P2 Government order dated 10.08.2021 takes away the fundamental rights of the citizens, including the right to life, personal liberty and livelihood, in as much as the rider to clause (iv) virtually means that a person cannot move out of his abode even for his livelihood, unless he/she satisfies any one of those requirements.
(vi) Declare further that the welfare policy for vaccination can never affect a fundamental right, particularly when there exists no reasonable nexus between vaccination and prohibition of continuation of occupation/ profession/trade or even going out for essentials.
A reading of the judgment of the Division Bench reveals that the contentions raised by the petitioners in those writ petitions are identical to the contentions raised by the petitioners herein. It is seen that on an elaborate consideration of the contentions advanced by the parties, the Division Bench repelled the contentions of the petitioners therein and dismissed the writ petitions. The relevant extracts of the judgment read thus :
31.Even though, contentions are raised by the petitioners, that their fundamental rights are affected, on an analysis of the pleadings put forth by them, we have no doubt in
14
W.P.(C) Nos.21120 & 21463 of 2021
our mind to say that the petitioners are self- centric and are concerned only with their fundamental rights guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution of India. The State Government, as a trustee of the public affairs, is duty bound to consider and view the issues due to the pandemic, in a broader and larger canvas, and should be concerned more with the interest of the public, rather than individual's interest. . . . . . . . .
x x x x x x x x x x
38.The grievance raised by the petitioners, who are seeking to quash certain clauses of the Government orders dated 4.8.2021 and 10.8.2021 is that the clauses violate their fundamental rights conferred under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and if the said provisions are implemented, the fundamental rights of the citizens along with the rights enjoyed by the petitioners, would be infringed.
40. . . . . . . Therefore, the rights enjoyed by a citizen under Article 19(1) of the Constitution is not an absolute right, in order to enjoy the same unmindful, ignorant, and negligent to the realities, taking place in the nation that are likely to affect the larger public, so as to create devastating effect in the public at large.
41.One of the contentions raised by the petitioners is that going by the provisions of the objectionable clause of the orders dated 4.8.2021 and 10.08.2021, extracted
15
W.P.(C) Nos.21120 & 21463 of 2021
above, the authority constituted under the District Management Act, 2005 is not entitled to compel the citizens, to take COVID-19 vaccination and wear mask, since the restrictions so imposed are violative of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India. However, we are of the considered opinion that the restrictions are imposed by the State Government and the authority under the Disaster Management Act, 2005, after conducting indepth study from time-to-time, with the aid and assistance of experts, in the field, and the orders/guidelines are issued, taking into account the specific requirements of the prevailing situation, so as to ensure safety and welfare of the public at large.
x x x x x x x x x x
45.When action is taken by the State Government, in the larger interest of the citizens, it can never be said that the fundamental rights of the citizens guaranteed under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India are violated. This we say because, there is a clear empowerment under clause (2) of Article 19, to make reasonable restrictions by introducing law in the larger interest of the public, and further, Article 21 of the Constitution makes it clear that no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to the procedure established by law, which also means, when the larger interest of the citizens is a concern for the State and authority under the Act, 2005, it is
16
W.P.(C) Nos.21120 & 21463 of 2021
imperative on the part of the State Government to ensure that appropriate orders/ guidelines are put in place, in order to protect the life and personal liberty of the citizens, rather than making individualistic approach, which if done, in our opinion, would be detrimental to the interest of the citizens at large.
46.Now, looking at the alleged objectionable clause of the Government order dated 10.08.2021, we are of the view that it is not an absolute bar or prohibition, interfering with the freedom of movement of the citizens, but it is a reasonable restriction imposed by the State Government, for protecting the interest of larger community from COVID-19 pandemic.
x x x x x x x x x x
54.From the above, it is clear that what is paramount is the life of the citizens at large, rather than individual rights enjoyed by the citizens under Part III of the Constitution.
56. In Dr. Raghavan Menon v. Health Inspector, Koduvayur , reported in 1972 KLT 834, a learned single Judge of this Court had an occasion to consider the question of vaccination in rural areas and held that it is sufficient to say that a system of vaccination even if it infringes the conscientious objection of the petitioner, the State has authority to introduce legislation, in the interest of the people for the preservation of public health which
17
W.P.(C) Nos.21120 & 21463 of 2021
is a part the scheme of social welfare.
x x x x x x x x x x
58. In Ritesh Sinha v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another , reported in (2019) 8 SCC 1, while considering the issue as to whether a Magistrate can authorise investigating agency to record voice sample of the accused, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, at paragraph (24), held thus:
“24. Would a judicial order compelling a person to give a sample of his voice violate the fundamental right to privacy Under Article 20(3) of the Constitution, is the next question. The issue is interesting and debatable but not having been argued before us it will suffice to note that in view of the opinion rendered by this Court in Modern Dental College and Research Centre and Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors. [(2016) 7 SCC 353], Gobind v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr. [(1975) 2 SCC 148] and the Nine Judge's Bench of this Court in K.S. Puttaswamy and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors. [(2017) 10 SCC 1] the fundamental right to privacy cannot be construed as absolute and but must bow down to compelling public interest. We refrain from any further discussion and consider it appropriate not to record any further observation on an issue not specifically
18
W.P.(C) Nos.21120 & 21463 of 2021
raised before us.”
x x x x x x x x x x
61.On an analysis of the discussions made above, it would be clear that interest of the State Government, in issuing the impugned Government orders, is only a collective interest, to protect the health, welfare, and interest of the citizens at large and, therefore, the action of the State in including the alleged objectionable clauses contained in the impugned Government orders, can never be said to
W.P.(C) Nos.21120 & 21463 of 2021 19
be arbitrary, illegal, irrational or unreasonable, and violative of the fundamental rights enjoyed by the petitioners or the citizens of the State under the Constitution of India.
62.Upshot of the above discussion is that the petitioners have not made out a case for interference with the action of the State Government in imposing the restrictive clauses contained in the Government orders dated 4.8.2021 and 10.08.2021.
As discernible from the extracted judgment, the same was rendered after referring to K.S.Puttaswamy as well. Needless to say, in the light of the decision of the Division Bench, this Court is precluded from taking a contrary view in the matter.
is worth referring to a few paragraphs of the judgment of the Apex court in In Re: Distribution of Essential Supplies and Services During Pandemic , 2021 SCC Online SC 339 :
“15. We had clarified in our order dated 30th April 2021, that in the context of the public health emergency with which the country is currently grappling, this Court appreciates the dynamic nature of the measures. Across the globe, the executive has been given a wider margin in enacting measures which ordinarily may have violated the liberty of
W.P.(C) Nos.21120 & 21463 of 2021 20
individuals, but are now incumbent to curb the pandemic. Historically, the judiciary has also recognized that constitutional scrutiny is transformed during such public health emergencies, where the executive functions in rapid consultation with scientists and other experts. In 1905, the Supreme Court of the United States in Jacobson v. Massachusetts 197 U.S. 11 (1905), considered a constitutional liberty challenge to a compulsory vaccination law that was enacted to combat the smallpox epidemic. Justice Harlan had noted the complex role of the government in battling public health emergencies in the following terms:
“..the State may invest local bodies called into existence for purposes of local administration with authority in some appropriate way to safeguard the public health and the public safety... While this court should guard with firmness every right appertaining to life, liberty or property as secured to the individual by the Supreme Law of the Land, it is of the last importance that it should not invade the domain of local authority except when it is plainly necessary to do so in order to enforce that law. The safety and the health of the people of Massachusetts are, in the first instance, for that Commonwealth to guard and protect……So far as they can be reached by any government, they depend, primarily, upon such action as the State in its wisdom may take, and we do not perceive that this legislation has invaded any right secured by the Federal Constitution.”
21
W.P.(C) Nos.21120 & 21463 of 2021
x x x x
17.In grappling with the second wave of the pandemic, this Court does not intend to secondguess the wisdom of the executive when it chooses between two competing and efficacious policy measures. However, it continues to exercise jurisdiction to determine if the chosen policy measure conforms to the standards of reasonableness, militates against manifest arbitrariness and protects the right to life of all
22
W.P.(C) Nos.21120 & 21463 of 2021
persons. This Court is presently assuming a dialogic jurisdiction where various stakeholders are provided a forum to raise constitutional grievances with respect to the management of the pandemic. Hence, this Court would, under the auspices of an open court judicial process, conduct deliberations with the executive where justifications for existing policies would be elicited and evaluated to assess whether they survive constitutional scrutiny.”
The aforesaid observations have been made by the Apex Court in the context of the power of the executive to take appropriate measures during public health emergencies. The judgment of the Division Bench referred to above is one rendered having regard to the said judgment of the Apex Court also.
12. Further, it is now trite that where there is a clash of two fundamental rights, the right which would advance the public morality or public interest, would alone be enforced through the process of Court. This proposition has been endorsed by the Apex Court in Mr ‘X’ v. Hospital ‘Z’ , (1998) 8 SCC 296. The relevant passages of the judgment read thus:
“27. . . . . . . . . In the face of these potentialities, and as
23
W.P.(C) Nos.21120 & 21463 of 2021
already held by this Court in its various decisions referred to above, the Right of Privacy is an essential component of right to life envisaged by Article 21. The right, however, is not absolute and may be lawfully restricted for the prevention of crime, disorder or protection of health or morals or protection of rights and freedom of others.
x x x x x x x x x
43. . . . . . . . . Moreover, where there is a clash of two Fundamental Rights, as in the instant case, namely, the appellant's right to privacy as part of right to life and Ms. 'Y's right to lead a healthy life which is her Fundamental Right under Article 21, the RIGHT which would advance the public morality or public interest, would alone be enforced through the process of Court, for the reason that moral considerations cannot be kept at bay and the Judges are not expected to sit as mute structures of clay, in the Hail, known as Court Room, but have to be sensitive, "in the sense that they must keep their fingers firmly upon the pulse of the accepted morality of the day." (See Legal Duties: Allen)”
That apart, i t is trite that larger public interest of the community should give way to individual apprehension of violation of human rights and right to life guaranteed under Article 21 [See G. Sundarrajan v. Union of India , (2013) 6 SCC 620]. No doubt, as held by the Apex Court in Aruna
24
W.P.(C) Nos.21120 & 21463 of 2021
Ramachandra Shanbaug , the right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution includes the right to refuse medical treatment as well, but in the light of the decisions in Mr.'X' and G.Sundarrajan , I am of the view that the said right of individuals does not in any manner affect the authority of the executive to take measures like those impugned in the writ petitions to restore normalcy to life in times of pandemic, and merely for the reason that the same gives certain advantages to the vaccinated, such measures cannot be challenged as discriminatory by the unvaccinated.
In the aforesaid circumstances, I do not find any merit in the writ petitions and the same are, accordingly, dismissed.
Sd/-
P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE.
YKB
25
W.P.(C) Nos.21120 & 21463 of 2021
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 21463/2021
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
| Exhibit P1 | A TRUE COPY OF CIRC NO.G4/81/2021/DCE, ISSUED BY THE IST R |
ULAR DATED 1.10.2021 ESPONDENT. |
|---|---|---|
| Exhibit P2 | A TRUE COPY OF THE NO.669/2021/DMD DAT BY THE 2ND RESPONDE |
G.O.(RT) ED 2.10.2021 ISSUED NT. |
| Exhibit P3 | A TRUE COPY OF TIME SEMESTER EXAMINATIO CONDUCT FROM 5.10.2 |
TABLE OF THE IST N IS SCHEDULED TO 021. |
| Exhibit P4 | A TRUE COPY OF POLI ONLINE UPDATE ON 21 COVID PROTOCOL. |
CE MEETING HELD .6.2021 VIOLATING |
| Exhibit P5 | A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 11.5.2 GAOURIAMMA. |
ONLINE MATHRUBHUMI 021 FUNERAL OF SMT. |
| Exhibit P6 | A TRUE COPY OF THE COVISHIELD VACCINE OF INDIA PVT. LTD. |
FACT SHEET OF OF SERUM INSTITUTE |
| Exhibit P7 | A TRUE COPY OF THE COVAXIN VACCINE OF |
FACT SHEET OF THE BHARAT BIOTECH. |
| Exhibit P8 | A TRUE COPY OF THE PFIZER VACCINE. |
FACT SHEET OF THE |
| Exhibit P9 | A TRUE COPY OF THE DATED 22.2.2021 IN NEWS. |
DEATH REPORT NEWS ONLINE MANORAMA |
| Exhibit P10 | A TRUE COPY OF THE DATED 25.8.2021 IN |
DEATH REPORT NEWS ONLINE DEEPIKA NEWS. |
| Exhibit P11 | A TRUE COPY OF THE DATED 20.8.2021 IN |
DEATH REPORT NEWS ONLINE MANORAMA |
W.P.(C) Nos.21120 & 21463 of 2021 26
NEWS. Exhibit P12 A TRUE COPY OF THE DEATH REPORT NEWS DATED 22.8.2021 IN ONLINE MANORAMA NEWS. Exhibit P13 A TRUE COPY OF NEWS DATED 25.6.2021 IN ONLINE DECCAN HERALD NEWS PERTAINS TO NEURO DISORDER TO COVISHIELD RECIPIENTS. Exhibit P14 A TRUE COPY OF THE NEWS DATED 21.1.2021 IN ONLINE INDIAN EXPRESS RELATING SHIVAMOGGA DOCTOR'S DEATH REPORT. Exhibit P15 A TRUE COPY OF STUDY REPORT DATED 3.6.2021 IN ONLINE MEDIA MALAYALAM NEWS, RELATING 2000 POLICE PERSONAL REPORTED COVID POSITIVE IN UTTARAKANDU AFTER TAKING TWO-DOSE VACCINES. Exhibit P16 A TRUE COPY OF ONLINE MATHRUBHUMI NEWS DATED 24.5.2021. Exhibit P17 A TRUE COPY OF THE ANSWERS TO THE FREQUENT QUESTION ANSWERED BY THE UNION MINISTRY OF HEALTH UPLOADED ON THEIR WEBSITE THAT VACCINATION IS NOT MANDATORY. Exhibit P18 A TRUE COPY OF THE RTI ONLINE UPLOADS OF GOVT, THE ANSWER STATING THE VACCINATION FOR COVID-19 IS VOLUNTARY. Exhibit P19 A TRUE COPY OF THE ANSWER ISSUED UNDER RTI APPLICATION TO ONE SRI. MUJEEB KOKKUR, ANSWERING THE VACCINATION IS NOT LEGALLY MANDATORY ISSUED BY THE OFFICE HEALTH DEPARTMENT. Exhibit P20 A TRUE COPY OF GOVERNMENT TOTAL DEATH STATISTICS REPORT UPLOADED IN GOVERNMENT WEBSITE.
W.P.(C) Nos.21120 & 21463 of 2021 27
Exhibit P21 A TRUE COY OF THE PRESS RELEASE DATED 25.9.2021 IN MATHRUBHUMI ONLINE NEWS OF THE CHIEF MINISTER OF STATE.
Exhibit P22 A TRUE COPY OF G.O.(RT) NO.659/2021/DMD, DATED 25.9.2021.
W.P.(C) Nos.21120 & 21463 of 2021 28
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 21120/2021
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
| Exhibit P1 | A TRUE COPY OF CIRCULAR NO.QIP (2) 273133/2021/DGE. DATED 09.09.2021 ISSUED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT. |
|---|---|
| Exhibit P2 | A TRUE COPY OF WATTS APP MESSAGE SENT BY THE DEO, KASARGODE. |
| Exhibit P3 | A TRUE COPY OF FACT SHEET OF COVISHIED VACCINE OF SERUM INSTITUTE OF INDIA PVT.LTD. |
| Exhibit P4 | A TRUE COPY OF FACT SHEET OF THE CAVAXIN VACCINE OF BHARAT BIOTECH. |
| Exhibit P5 | A TRUE COPY OF THE FACT SHEET OF PFIZER VACCINE. |
| Exhibit P6 | A TRUE COPY OF THE DEATH REPORT NEWS DATED 22.02.2021 IN ONLINE MANORAMA NEWS. |
| Exhibit P7 | A TRUE COPY OF DEATH REPORT NEWS DATED 25.08.2021 IN ONLINE DEEPIKA NEWS. |
| Exhibit P8 | A TRUE COPY OF THE DEATH REPORT NEWS DATED 20.08.2021 IN ONLINE MANORAMA NEWS. |
| Exhibit P9 | A TRUE COPY OF THE DEATH REPORT NEWS DATED 22.08.2021 IN ONLINE MANORAMA NEWS. |
| Exhibit P10 | A TRUE COPY OF THE NEWS DATED 25.06.2021 IN ONLINE DECCAN HERALD NEWS PERTAIN TO NEURO DISORDER TO COVISHIED RECIPIENTS. |
| Exhibit P11 | A TRUE COPY OF THE NEWS DATED 21.01.2021 IN ONLINE INDIAN EXPRESS |
W.P.(C) Nos.21120 & 21463 of 2021 29
RELATING SHIVAMOGGA DOCTOR'S DEATH REPORT.
Exhibit P12 A TRUE COPY OF RISK OF HEARTBURN VACCINATION OF PFIZER AND MODENA VACCINATE DATED 27.06.2021 IN ONLINE ASIANET NEWS. Exhibit P13 A TRUE COPY OF STUDY REPORT DATED 03.06.2021 IN ONLINE MEDIA MALAYALAM NEWS, RELATING 2000 POLICE PERSONAL REPORTED COVID POSITIVE IN UTTARAKANDU AFTER TAKING TWO DOSE VACCINES. Exhibit P14 A TRUE COPY OF ONLINE MATHURBHUMI NEWS DATED 24.05.2021 IN ONLINE MANORAMA NEWS. Exhibit P15 A TRUE COPY OF THE ANSWERS TO THE FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTION ANSWERED BY THE UNION MINISTRY OF HEALTH UPLOADED ON THEIR WEBSITE THAT THE VACCINATION IS NOT MANDATORY. Exhibit P16 A TRUE COPY OF THE RTI ONLINE UPLOADS OF GOVT. THE ANSWER STATING THE VACCINATION FOR COVID 19 IS VOLUNTARY. Exhibit P17 A TRUE COPY OF THE ANSWER ISSUED UNDER RTI APPLICATION TO ONE SRI,MUJEEB KOKKUR, ANSWERING THE VACCINATION IS NOT LEGALLY MANDATORY ISSUED BY THE OFFICE HEALTH DEPARTMENT.
Exhibit P18 A TRUE COPY OF THE OPEN LETTER TO HON'BLE PRIME MINISTER WITH THE CONSENT OF 161 DOCTORS FROM PAN INDIA TO STOP THE SPREAD OF MISINFORMATION AND FEAR AMONGST THE CITIZEN IN ABSENCE OF ANY EVIDENCE OF DEATHS DUE TO NOVEL CORONAVIRUS. Exhibit P19 A TRUE COPY OF GOVERNMENT TOTAL DEATH
W.P.(C) Nos.21120 & 21463 of 2021 30
STATISTICS REPORT UPLOADED IN GOVERNMENT WEBSITE.
Exhibit P20 A TRUE COPY OF THE PRESS RELEASE DATED 25.09.2021 IN MATHURBHUMI ONLINE NEWS OF THE CHIEF MINISTER OF STATE.
Exhibit P21 A TRUE COPY OF GO9RT) NO.659/2021/DMD DATED 25.09.2021.
2 issues framed by the court
Do vaccination-linked restrictions on access to educational institutions violate the fundamental rights of unvaccinated students and school teachers?
Does the right to refuse medical treatment prevent executive pandemic measures that give advantages to vaccinated persons?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of IndiaReferred¶161
(2017) 10 SCC 1 · Who else cites this
Aruna Ramachandra Shanbaug v. Union of IndiaDistinguished¶187
(2011) 4 SCC 454 · Who else cites this
W.P.(C) Nos.16614 of 2021 and 17274 of 2021Followed¶110
In Re: Distribution of Essential Supplies and Services During PandemicRelied on¶163
2021 SCC Online SC 339 · Who else cites this
Mr ‘X’ v. Hospital ‘Z’Relied on¶177
(1998) 8 SCC 296 · Who else cites this
G. Sundarrajan v. Union of IndiaRelied on¶184
(2013) 6 SCC 620 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 1 enactments
SANIL NARAYANAN
RIDHA FATHIMA
THE STATE OF KERALA
THE CHAIRMAN, STATE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE, KERALA STATE DISASTER MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY
THE DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION
UNION OF INDIA
P.B.SURESH KUMAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
