Hope to start supply of ZyCoV-D vaccine by mid to end Sept: Zydus Group MD
'More clarity on ZyCOV-D vaccine price by next week'
New Delhi, Aug 21: Drug firm Zydus Cadila on Saturday said it is looking to supply its COVID-19 vaccine ZyCoV-D by the middle to end of September, adding the pricing of the dose will be announced in the next one or two weeks.
The company's indigenously developed needle-free three-dose COVID-19 vaccine ZyCoV-D was granted emergency use authorisation (EUA) by the drug regulator on Friday, making it the first vaccine to be administered to beneficiaries in the age group of 12-18 years in the country.
"Post the emergency use authorisation, now we will work closely with the regulatory authorities to work on the pricing and modality of delivery of the doses of our vaccine. In next one or two weeks we will have better clarity on the pricing," Zydus Group Managing Director Sharvil Patel said in a virtual press conference.
The company hopes that "by middle to end of September, we can start supplying the vaccines, and as I said we need to scale up to 1 crore doses and we believe by October we can achieve this. We believe by October we will start producing 1 crore doses and that would mean by end of Jan we can have 4 to 5 crore doses," he added.
Asked if the company was considering partnering with other firms to scale up production of its vaccine, Patel said Zydus Cadila is actively looking at ramping up manufacturing both domestically through partnerships and also outside of the country.
The company is also seeking approval for a two-dose regimen of the vaccine, he added.
Describing the approval for Zydus Cadila's vaccine as a momentous feat, Prime Minister Narendra Modi in a tweet on Friday had said, "India is fighting COVID-19 with full vigour. The approval for world's first DNA based ''ZyCov-D'' vaccine of @ZydusUniverse is a testimony to the innovative zeal of India's scientists. A momentous feat indeed."
ZyCoV-D is the sixth vaccine to get the emergency use authorisation in the country, after Serum Institute of India's Covishield, Bharat Biotech's Covaxin, Russian vaccine Sputnik V and the vaccines of Moderna and Johnson and Johnson.
Of these, Covishield, Covaxin and Sputnik V are currently in use in India.
These vaccines are being given to only those above 18 years of age and unlike ZyCoV-D, which has three doses, these are administered in two doses.
"This is a historic milestone with ZyCoV-D, a product of Indian innovation becoming the world's first DNA vaccine being offered for human use and supporting the world's largest immunization drive," Cadila Healthcare Chairman Pankaj R Patel had said on Friday.
The company plans to manufacture 10-12 crore doses of ZyCoV-D annually, Zydus Cadila had said in a statement.
"We are particularly happy that our vaccine will contribute to this fight against COVID-19 and enable the country to vaccinate a larger population especially in the age group of 12-18 years.
"I would like to thank all the researchers, clinical trial investigators, volunteers and the regulators who have supported this endeavour," the Cadila Healthcare chairman had added.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
Single higher education regulator bill tabled in LS; Oppn flags ‘centralisation,' JPC likely
New Delhi: A bill to set up a 13-member body to regulate institutions of higher education was introduced in the Lok Sabha on Monday.
Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan introduced the Viksit Bharat Shiksha Adhishthan Bill, which seeks to establish an overarching higher education commission along with three councils for regulation, accreditation, and ensuring academic standards for universities and higher education institutions in India.
Meanwhile, the move drew strong opposition, with members warning that it could weaken institutional autonomy and result in excessive centralisation of higher education in India.
The Viksit Bharat Shiksha Adhishthan Bill, 2025, earlier known as the Higher Education Council of India (HECI) Bill, has been introduced in line with the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020.
The proposed legislation seeks to merge three existing regulatory bodies, the University Grants Commission (UGC), the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE), and the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE), into a single unified body called the Viksit Bharat Shiksha Adhishthan.
At present, the UGC regulates non-technical higher education institutions, the AICTE oversees technical education, and the NCTE governs teacher education in India.
Under the proposed framework, the new commission will function through three separate councils responsible for regulation, accreditation, and the maintenance of academic standards across universities and higher education institutions in the country.
According to the Bill, the present challenges faced by higher educational institutions due to the multiplicity of regulators having non-harmonised regulatory approval protocols will be done away with.
The higher education commission, which will be headed by a chairperson appointed by the President of India, will cover all central universities and colleges under it, institutes of national importance functioning under the administrative purview of the Ministry of Education, including IITs, NITs, IISc, IISERs, IIMs, and IIITs.
At present, IITs and IIMs are not regulated by the University Grants Commission (UGC).
Government to refer bill to JPC; Oppn slams it
The government has expressed its willingness to refer it to a joint committee after several members of the Lok Sabha expressed strong opposition to the Bill, stating that they were not given time to study its provisions.
Responding to the opposition, Parliamentary Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju said the government intends to refer the Bill to a Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) for detailed examination.
Congress Lok Sabha MP Manish Tewari warned that the Bill could result in “excessive centralisation” of higher education. He argued that the proposed law violates the constitutional division of legislative powers between the Union and the states.
According to him, the Bill goes beyond setting academic standards and intrudes into areas such as administration, affiliation, and the establishment and closure of university campuses. These matters, he said, fall under Entry 25 of the Concurrent List and Entry 32 of the State List, which cover the incorporation and regulation of state universities.
Tewari further stated that the Bill suffers from “excessive delegation of legislative power” to the proposed commission. He pointed out that crucial aspects such as accreditation frameworks, degree-granting powers, penalties, institutional autonomy, and even the supersession of institutions are left to be decided through rules, regulations, and executive directions. He argued that this amounts to a violation of established constitutional principles governing delegated legislation.
Under the Bill, the regulatory council will have the power to impose heavy penalties on higher education institutions for violating provisions of the Act or related rules. Penalties range from ₹10 lakh to ₹75 lakh for repeated violations, while establishing an institution without approval from the commission or the state government could attract a fine of up to ₹2 crore.
Concerns were also raised by members from southern states over the Hindi nomenclature of the Bill. N.K. Premachandran, an MP from the Revolutionary Socialist Party representing Kollam in Kerala, said even the name of the Bill was difficult to pronounce.
He pointed out that under Article 348 of the Constitution, the text of any Bill introduced in Parliament must be in English unless Parliament decides otherwise.
DMK MP T.M. Selvaganapathy also criticised the government for naming laws and schemes only in Hindi. He said the Constitution clearly mandates that the nomenclature of a Bill should be in English so that citizens across the country can understand its intent.
Congress MP S. Jothimani from Tamil Nadu’s Karur constituency described the Bill as another attempt to impose Hindi and termed it “an attack on federalism.”
_vb_22.jpeg)
