|  |  | 

India Top Headlines

Center rejects SC, warns of ‘overly enthusiastic judicial intervention’ | India News


NEW DELHI: The Center has communicated to the Supreme Court that judges have little experience dealing with the dynamic nature of the many challenges posed by the Covid-19 pandemic and that the executive, both the Center and the states, in consultation with experts in the domain, they were in a much better position to handle the harrowing situation.
“In the context of a global pandemic, where the nation’s response and strategy are completely driven by expert medical and scientific opinions, there is little room for judicial interference. Any overly enthusiastic judicial intervention, although well-intentioned, can have unforeseen and unintended consequences, in the absence of expert advice or administrative expertise, leaving doctors, scientists, experts and the executive very little room to find innovative solutions on the fly. ” , the Center said.
The first signs of a rejection of the SC’s expanding oxygen distribution superintendency emerged when the Center in its affidavit said it was withholding the details requested by the higher court and leaving a decision on this matter to the established national task force. by a SC bank. headed.
The working group is made up of experts from various cities. “In view of the constitution of an NTF and its terms and references, the central government respectfully differs its response on the issues mentioned in the SC order related to generation, availability, acquisition, allocation, supply, logistics plans for transportation of oxygen to the states, its delivery by the states to their hospitals and the manner of its administration to Covid-19 patients, ”said the Center, the reverential phraseology barely camouflaging its anguish over the SC’s suo motu procedures.
The bank, in its April 30 and May 6 requests, posed many questions to the Center, from nationalizing vaccination to supplying essential drugs. The government saw this as interference by the judiciary in political decisions made in consultation between the central and state governments and experts in the domain.
In search of executive discretion and the policy framework to deal with the situation, the Center said: “In times of unprecedented crisis, the executive functioning of government needs discretion to formulate policies of general interest. In view of the unprecedented and peculiar circumstances in which the vaccination campaign is conceived as an executive policy, the wisdom of the executive must be trusted ”.
The Center did explain its vaccination policy, saying: “According to medical councils and global policy, it is established around the world that the age group above 45 is especially vulnerable to Covid-19. In light of the same, it has been decided that vaccination of this group (over 45 years) is absolutely imperative. Since vaccination of the entire country is not possible in one stretch due to the suddenness of the pandemic, limited availability of vaccine doses, and vulnerability as the primary consideration, the policy is framed as before, which is fair, equitable, non-discriminatory and based on an intelligible differentiation factor between the two age groups “.
“This policy conforms to the mandate of Article 14 and Article 21 of the Constitution and is carried out after several rounds of consultation and discussion with experts, state governments and vaccine manufacturers that do not require interference from SC, since when dealing with With a pandemic of this magnitude, the executive has room for free play in the joints, in the broader public interest. ”
Although the Center passed the motion to recognize the role of the SC in scrutinizing the executive’s work, it was of the firm view that the judiciary lacked the necessary expertise or the means to address, even at a strategic level, the challenges posed by the pandemic, which is driven by mutated versions of Covid.

Times of India