The court upheld that government policy decisions during a pandemic should not be interfered with, prioritizing public health over individual rights.

J U D G M E N T

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ The 1 st petitioner is an Ayurvedic Practitioner holding MD in Ayurveda. The 2 nd petitioner is a Homeopathic Doctor running his own Clinic at Chengamanad. The petitioners are before this Court seeking to direct the 1 st respondent to consider and take a decision on Ext.P1 representation, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, within a time frame to be fixed by this Court.

2. In Ext.P1 representation, the petitioners have stated that the Covid pandemic is spread in Kerala and Kerala is next only to Maharashtra. There are only 10 nations in the world having more Covid-19 patience than in Kerala. In Ext.P1, the petitioners state that the vaccine administered by the State for controlling Covid-19 pandemic is not effective. Citizens who have taken two doses of vaccine have also died due to Covid-19. The petitioners prayed that no Covid vaccine be administered to the children. In Ext.P1, the petitioners have made 11 demands relating to Covid-19 protocols and treatment.

3. The petitioners demand that the AYUSH system of medicine should be made use of in the campaign against Covid pandemic. Citizens should be permitted to resort to the system of medicine they like. The AYUSH system should be publicised through media. The order mandating Covid-19 vaccine to enter into public spaces, is violation of human rights and it should be cancelled/withdrawn. A research should be made on the efficacy of Covid-19 vaccine. Data relating to side-effects and deaths due to administration of vaccine should be made transparent and made known to the general public.

4. The petitioners also demand that the unscientific lockdown methods should be stopped. Citizens should be trained to live with Covid-19. Ayurveda system of medicine should be made use of for enhancing resistance against Covid and for treatment. Even if vaccine is available, homeo medicine should be administered to boost immunity.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Government Pleader for respondents 1 and 2 and the Assistant Solicitor General of India representing the 3 rd respondent.

6. In short, the demands made by the respondents in Ext.P1 representation relate to the vaccination policy followed by the Central and State Governments in the context of Covid-19 pandemic and utilisation of AYUSH Systems of Medicine to combat the pandemic. A Division Bench of this Court considered a writ petition seeking various reliefs in the matter of combating Covid-19 pandemic, in W.P.(C) Nos.16614 and 17274 of 2021. The Division Bench held that if the Court interfere with the policy adopted by the Central Government, it would imbalance the process and it is for the State Government to address its requirements to the Government of India. The Government has taken decisions in the collective interest to protect the health, welfare and interest of the citizens at large.

7. In W.P.(C) No.20834/2021 filed by Advocate M.S.Vineeth seeking to propagate Homoeopathic prophylactic medicines against Covid to students, a Division Bench of this Court considered related Government Orders in elaboration and held that the prayers are properly answered in the orders of the Government.

8. This Court considered the policy of the Government in the matter of combating Covid-19 pandemic in W.P.(C) No.21120/2021 and held that where there is a clash between two fundamental rights, the right which would advance the public morality or public interest, would alone be enforced through the process of the Court.

9. When the State is facing unprecedented surge of disease in the third wave of the pandemic and when the Government is fighting to get the situation under control with all its might, a direction by this Court to consider Ext.P1 representation of the petitioners with demands directly related to the pandemic policy, would amount to interference with policy decisions of the Government. Therefore, this Court decline the prayers of the petitioners.

The