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.
Delhi LG recommends NIA probe against Kejriwal, AAP says conspiracy at BJP's behest
New Delhi, May 6: Delhi Lt Governor V K Saxena has recommended an NIA probe against Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal for allegedly receiving political funding from the banned terrorist organisation 'Sikhs for Justice', Raj Niwas sources said on Monday.
AAP alleged that the recommendation is "yet another conspiracy" against Kejriwal at the behest of the BJP.
In a letter to the Union Home secretary, the lt governor's secretariat said Saxena had received a complaint that the Kejriwal-led AAP allegedly received USD 16 million funding from extremist Khalistani groups for facilitating the release of Devendra Pal Bhullar.
Bhullar, who is in Amritsar Central Jail, was convicted in connection with the killing of nine people in a bomb blast in 1993 in Delhi. He was sentenced to death by a designated TADA court on August 25, 2001 and is undergoing life imprisonment after the Supreme Court commuted his death sentence.
“The electronic evidences adduced by the complainant requires investigation including forensic examination,” Saxena has said in the letter according to sources.
The complaint is made against a chief minister and relates to political funding received from a banned terrorist organisation, the letter stated.
The move comes a day ahead of the Supreme Court considering granting Kejrwal interim bail in view of the ongoing Lok Sabha elections. The AAP chief, who is in Tihar jail, was arrested on March 21 by the Enforcement Directorate in connection with an excise policy linked money laundering case.
The complaint refers to a video released by Khalistani terrorist Gurpatwant Singh Pannun, where he alleged that the Kejriwal-led AAP received USD 16 million from Khalistani groups between 2014 and 2022, sources said.
In the complaint to the LG, it has also been alleged that Kejriwal held closed-door meetings with Khalistani leaders at Gurudwara Richmond Hills, New York, during his visit in 2014. Kejriwal allegedly promised to facilitate the release of Bhullar in return for substantial financial backing from Khalistani factions to AAP.
In a series of posts on social media, a former AAP worker, Munish Kumar Raizada, also shared purported pictures of Kejriwal’s meeting with Khalistani leaders, the complaint said, according to sources.
Reacting to the development, AAP leader and Delhi minister Saurabh Bharadwaj called it "yet another conspiracy against Kejriwal at the behest of BJP".
"They are losing all seven seats in Delhi and are rattled by the fear of defeat in Lok Sabha polls," he said.
Bhullar was shifted to Amritsar Central Jail from Delhi’s Tihar Jail on health grounds in June 2015.
