No Merit on Vaccination for the Right to work
The Guwahati High Court with the recent judgement in Madan Mili vs Union of India makes it clear that to be vaccinated is no ground to get any kind of economic benefit.
Table of Content:
- Introduction
- Madan Mili vs union of India [PIL 13 of 2021]
- Background of the case
- Submission of the Parties
- Constitutional provisions involved
- Analysis of the court
- The decision of the court
Introduction
At the end of the year 2019, there is an outbreak of the noble coronavirus which spreads rapidly across the globe. In the mid March 2020, in India, the entire nation went on lockdown to break the chain and in order to reduce the spread of coronavirus. At the beginning of 2021, the vaccination for the coronavirus was discovered and invented and from the month of March, the process of vaccination was started. The union government declared that from the may onward every person who is above the age of 18 years is entitled to get vaccinated.
Now on one hand where this vaccination process was considered as a mark of economic recovery, the question arises regarding the policy of state government which discriminates between those who are not vaccinated by not providing them economic benefit. The said question was entertained and answered by the Guwahati High Court in the case of Madan Mili vs Union of India.
Background of the case
In the instant case, the petitioner by the way of Public Interest Litigation approached the Guwahati High Court by challenging the clause 11 of the order issued by the state government of Arunachal Pradesh on 30th June regarding the temporary permit given in both private as well public sector work to all those persons who have been vaccinated against the Covid’ 19. The state government of Arunachal Pradesh issued the order on 30th June 2021 under section 22 (2) (H) of the Disaster Management Act, 2005.
The clause 11 of the state government order reads as follow:
“Tourist ILPs shall remain suspended during the period of this order [till August 1]. However, for developmental works in both public and private sectors, temporary permits may be issued, provided such persons are vaccinated for COVID-19,”
The petitioner challenged this clause on the ground of violation of the Fundamental Rights enshrined under Article 14, 19 (1) (d), and 21 of the constitution of India.
The Contention of parties
Submissions of the Petitioner
- The petitioner contended that the state government order for giving the permit to work both in private as well public sector to only those who have been vaccinated is the infringement of his fundamental right under Article 19 (1) (d) of the Constitution of India.
- The petitioner further contended that as per the RTI information provided by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare provided that the vaccination for Covid 19 is not mandatory but is voluntary in nature.
- The petitioner further submits that the said information is also provided on the website of the Ministry of Health and Family welfare.
- The petitioner further added that the Ministry of Health and Family welfare by answering a question no. 3976 in the Lok Sabha on 19th March 2021 clearly specifies that “no provision of compensation for recipients of Covid-19 Vaccination against any kind of side effects or medical complication that may arise due to inoculation. The Covid-19 Vaccination is entirely voluntary for the beneficiaries.”
Submission of the State of Arunachal Pradesh
- The state government of Arunachal Pradesh represented through Additional Advocate General R.H. Nabam argued that the said clause 11 of its order passed on 30th June 2021 is in consonance with the spread of noble coronavirus throughout the state and in order to take preventive measures such implications are necessary and therefore, the said clause is reasonable and not arbitrary in nature.
- The Additional Advocate General representing the state further added in his submission that the primary and the sole objective behind passing such an order is to break the chain of spreading cases and take a control of the rapid spread of noble coronavirus.
Constitutional Provisions involved
- Article 14 of the Constitution of India:
“Equality before law The State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth”
- Article 19 (1) (d) of the Constitution of India:
“Protection of Certain rights regarding freedom of speech etc.:
- All citizens shall have the right:
(d) To move freely throughout the territory of India.”
- Article 21 of the Constitution of India:
“Protection of life and personal liberty No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.”
Issues Framed
- Whether the impugned clause 11 of the order passed by the State of Arunachal Pradesh is in violation of Article 14, 19 (1) (d) and 21 of the constitution of India?
- Whether the classification made on Vaccinated and Non vaccinated person is based on any rational nexus or not?
Analysis of the Court
The clause 11 of the order dated 30th June 2021 by the State of Arunachal Pradesh, the state government makes a classification under two groups regarding the permit of work as Vaccinated and Non Vaccinated. Accordingly, the one who is vaccinated is permitted to work in both private as well as public sectors while the one who is not vaccinated cannot be permitted to go on a job. The court analysed and stated the right enshrined under Article 19 (1) (d) of the constitution of India which provides a right to move freely in the territory of India is subject to certain restrictions and the state have the power to impose such restrictions with a reasonable justification and which is in the public interest.
With the regard to the classification on the basis of the vaccinated and non vaccinated person in the state of Arunachal Pradesh is done for the purpose of stopping the spread of noble coronavirus the Itanagar Bench of Guwahati High Court stated that “there is no evidence available either in the record or in the public domain that Covid-19 vaccinated persons cannot be infected with Covid-19 virus, or he/she cannot be a carrier of a Covid-19 virus and consequently, a spreader of Covid-19 virus.” Further, the Bench added that the classification must be done on some substantial and reasonable ground, and both the vaccinated and non vaccinated people who are suffering from the corona virus are likely to spread the virus equally. Therefore, the bench stated that the classification is not done on any notional or rational nexus.
The decision of the court
The said Bench of the Guwahati High Court while deciding the instant case relied on its previous judgment of the case In Re Dinthar Incident Aizwal vs State of Mizoram & ors. In this case,, the High Court held that imposing restrictions on an unvaccinated person by not permitting them to earn their livelihood or go outside to buy the essential products is considered to be unreasonable, unjustified and arbitrary in nature. The court held in the instant case that the said clause of the order vide dated 30th June 2021 by the State of Arunachal Pradesh was held to be in violation of Article 14, Article 19 (1) (d), and Article 21 of the Constitution. The classification made on the basis of vaccinated and non vaccinated is found to be intelligible differentia.
The judge in the instant case while adjudicating the matter underlined the two conditions:
- he classification must be founded on an intelligible differentiation which distinguishes persons or things that are grouped together from others left out of the group;
- The differentiation must have a rational relation to the object sought to be achieved by such classification.
The court by granting the interim relief to the petitioner of the said case imposes a stay on the impugned clause of the said order till the further order is passed by the court.