M'luru: Doctor, student, parents send legal notice to K'taka govt on opening of schools, colleges
Say asking students for mandatory vaccination to attend offline classes "illegal and unscientific"
Mangaluru: Noted Physician and activist Dr. Srinivas Kakkaliya along with a student and parents of students has issued a legal notice to the Karnataka government against the statement of the state’s Dy.CM wherein he had said the state will resume offline classes for students in colleges after a vaccination drive for students and teaching and non-teaching staff of colleges in the state.
Karnataka Dy.CM Dr. Ashwath Narayana had recently stated that the government has decided to conduct a vaccination drive at the college level to ensure vaccination to all students above the age of 18 and all the staff as well. It was further reported that the date of re-opening of the offline classes will be announced soon after the completion of the first dose of vaccination to all eligible students and staff.
Taking note of the development, Dr. Kakkilaya along with three others has issued the legal notice to the government of Karnataka. Mallanagowda H Patil, S/o Sri Hanumantha Gowda of Belagavi District, Yamunappa Meti, father of Sachil Hanumantha Gowda Patil of Mangaluru, and Abdul Latheef M, F/o Liya Maryam, of Mangaluru are the other parties issuing the notice.
While Mallanagowda is a student of a private college in Mangaluru, others are mentioned as the parents of students studying in colleges.
In the notice issued to the Chief Minister, Chief Secretary of the State, Health Secretary of the state and Dy.CM Dr. Ashwath Narayana and Education Minister Suresh Kumar, Dr. Kakkilaya has called the idea of mandatorily asking students to get vaccinated to attend offline classes as illegal, unscientific, and illusory.
The notice has also recalled the judgment of the High Court of Meghalaya dated 23-06-2021 ““Article 21 encompasses within its fold, right to health, as a fundamental right. By that same analogy, the right to health care, which includes vaccination, is a fundamental right. However, vaccination by force or being made mandatory by adopting coercive methods vitiates the very fundamental purpose of the welfare attached to it. It impinges on the fundamental right(s) as such, especially when it affects the right to means of livelihood which makes it possible for a person to live. As held in Olga Tellis & Ors vs. Bombay Municipal Corporation & Ors reported at AIR 1986 SC 180 = (1985) 3 SCC 545, the right to life includes the right to the means of livelihood. Any action of the State which is in absolute derogation of this basic principle is squarely affected by Article 19(1)(g). Although, Article 19(6) prescribes “reasonable restrictions” in the “interest of general public”, the present instance is exemplary and clearly distinguishable. It affects an individual’s right, choice and liberty significantly more than affecting the general public as such or for that matter, the latter’s interests being at stake because of the autonomous decision of an individual human being of choosing not to be vaccinated. It is more about striking the right balance between an individual’s right vis-à-vis the right of the public at large. However, in substantiation of Mill’s theory of the liberty to exercise one’s right until it impinges on the right of another; here too, the “welfare State” is attempting to secure the rights of others, which – though legitimate – is palpably excessive owing to the procedure adopted by it. Another pivotal question emerges as to whether any notification/order published by the State Government and/or its authority can be understood as a prescription by “law” for the purposes of prohibiting a greater degree of rights; i.e., fundamental rights. In other words, can a State Government and/or its authority issue any notification/order which is likely to have a direct effect on the fundamental rights of its citizens especially on a subject matter that concerns both public health and the fundamental rights of the individual person.”
““There are several ambiguities on the procedural and substantive aspects of the concerned notification/order. Doubts are cast on whether coercive assertion of one’s fundamental right can tend to abrogate another’s equally placed fundamental right. Question also arises whether fundamental right can be forcefully imposed even if the beneficiary is not inclined to its exercise, because, if the latter is undertaken, then there is a risk of running into infringing on the fundamental right to privacy and exercise of personal liberty. Furthermore, whether to subject oneself to an intrusion of his/her body, even if of minor intensity, e.g., through a needle, concerns issues of personal and bodily autonomy and bodily integrity, similar to abortion rights or non-sterilization rights or even sex reassignment surgeries, irrespective of what consequences the individual might be inviting. This finds mention in decisions of the European Commission and Court of Human Rights [X vs. Netherlands of 1978 (decision rendered on 4th December, 1978); X vs. Austria of 1979 (decision rendered on 13th December, 1979)] which has become truer in the present times across the world than ever before. Compulsorily administration of a vaccine without hampering one‟s right to life and liberty based on informed choice and informed consent is one thing. However, if any compulsory vaccination drive is coercive by its very nature and spirit, it assumes a different proportion and character.” It further quoted the judgement.
“The aforesaid judgment rendered by Honourable High Court of Meghalaya, in the absence of any contra judgment by our Honourable High Court or the Honourable Supreme Court, constitute a binding precedent and the State of Karnataka is also bound by the judgment rendered by the Honourable High Court of Meghalaya” the notice stated.
“Further, in the various judgments rendered by the High Courts so also the Apex Court, the constitutional Courts have made it very clear that the government have no authoritative rights to interfere with the individual rights or even impose the mandatory vaccination or the mandatory medical check-ups. In fact, even in the statement given by the Secretary of the Ministry of Health and Family welfare, namely Sri. Anurag Sinha, representing the government of India, he has made it very clear that taking covid vaccine is entirely voluntary and there is no relationship whatsoever to the provisions of the government facilities, citizenship, job etc to the vaccine’ it added.
“As such, my clients reasonably feel that imposition of restriction by making vaccination mandatory to the students as well as to teaching and non-teaching staffs for resumption of the offline classes is highly illegal, illusory and unscientific, apart from the fact that the same amounts to contempt of court. Needless to state that imposition of such unscientific rules will definitely lead to complications and resumption offline classes in the schools and colleges will definitely be postponed indefinitely” it noted.
“Under these circumstances your good selves are requested and called upon not to make vaccination mandatory or make the same as pre requisite for the opening of the offline classes and in the larger interest of the students, your good selves are requested to take necessary emergent steps for opening of the schools and colleges without any further delay. Any failure on your part to comply with the aforesaid valid, lawful and scientific demands or any actions in contradiction to the aforementioned decisions, which are based on the judgments of the law Courts would result in initiation of necessary proceedings as against you and hence taking into positive assertions of my clients your good selves are once again requested to take positive steps as has been requested by my clients” the notice concluded.
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.
Another North Goa nightclub sealed; Kejriwal says corruption led to fire tragedy
Panaji (PTI): As part of a crackdown against tourist establishments violating laws and safety norms in the aftermath of the Arpora fire tragedy, Goa authorities on Saturday sealed a renowned club at Vagator and revoked the fire department NOC of another club.
Cafe CO2 Goa, located on a cliff overlooking the Arabian Sea at Vagator beach in North Goa, was sealed. The move came two days after Goya Club, also in Vagator, was shut down for alleged violations of rules.
Elsewhere, campaigning for local body polls, AAP leader Arvind Kejriwal said the fire incident at Birch by Romeo Lane nightclub at Arpora, which claimed 25 lives on December 6, happened because the BJP government in the state was corrupt.
An inspection of Cafe CO2 Goa by a state government-appointed team revealed that the establishment, with a seating capacity of 250, did not possess a no-objection certificate (NOC) of the Fire and Emergency Services Department. The club, which sits atop Ozrant Cliff, also did not have structural stability, the team found.
The Fire and Emergency Services on Saturday also revoked the NOC issued to Diaz Pool Club and Bar at Anjuna as the fire extinguishers installed in the establishment were found to be inadequate, said divisional fire officer Shripad Gawas.
A notice was issued to Nitin Wadhwa, the partner of the club, he said in the order.
Campaigning at Chimbel village near Panaji in support of his party's Zilla Panchayat election candidate, Aam Aadmi Party leader Kejriwal said the nightclub fire at Arpora happened because of the "corruption of the Pramod Sawant-led state government."
"Why this fire incident happened? I read in the newspapers that the nightclub had no occupancy certificate, no building licence, no excise licence, no construction licence or trade licence. The entire club was illegal but still it was going on," he said.
"How could it go on? Couldn't Pramod Sawant or anyone else see it? I was told that hafta (bribe) was being paid," the former Delhi chief minister said.
A person can not work without bribing officials in the coastal state, Kejriwal said, alleging that officers, MLAs and even ministers are accepting bribes.
