Plea Seeking Direction to State of UP To Bring Law To Compensate COVID-19 Vaccinated Individuals Dismissed By Allahabad High Court

first_imgNews UpdatesPlea Seeking Direction to State of UP To Bring Law To Compensate COVID-19 Vaccinated Individuals Dismissed By Allahabad High Court Sparsh Upadhyay10 Feb 2021 8:38 PMShare This – xPlea seeking legislation to compensate the COVID-19 Vaccinated individuals in case of loss/ sufferings dismissed by Allahabad High Court.While noting that a direction cannot be given to legislate a law, the Allahabad High Court last week dismissed a plea seeking direction to the State of Uttar Pradesh to bring a legislation to compensate the COVID-19 Vaccinated individuals in case of loss/ sufferings. The Bench of Justice Sanjay Yadav and Justice Jayant Banerji was hearing the plea of one Gajendra Singh Yadav (a…Your free access to Live Law has expiredTo read the article, get a premium account.Your Subscription Supports Independent JournalismSubscription starts from ₹ 599+GST (For 6 Months)View PlansPremium account gives you:Unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments.Reading experience of Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.Subscribe NowAlready a subscriber?LoginWhile noting that a direction cannot be given to legislate a law, the Allahabad High Court last week dismissed a plea seeking direction to the State of Uttar Pradesh to bring a legislation to compensate the COVID-19 Vaccinated individuals in case of loss/ sufferings. The Bench of Justice Sanjay Yadav and Justice Jayant Banerji was hearing the plea of one Gajendra Singh Yadav (a law student), who drew inference from the United States of America having National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act 1986 and other countries having similar enactment to ensure compensation to person who suffer any loss/ injury due to side effect of any vaccine. He contended before the Court that presently mass drive is carried out to vaccinate one and all and with large scale vaccination the life and personal liberty of individuals will be at peril. He further argued that to protect the life and personal liberty of individuals he seeks command to the State of Uttar Pradesh to have statutory provisions in other word legislation to compensate the individuals in case of loss/ sufferings. The Court cited the Apex Court’s rulings in the cases of Bal Ram Bali & Anr. v. Union of India AIR 2007 SC 3074, V.K. Naswa v. Union of India (2012) 2 SCC 542 and Manoj Narula v. Union of India (2014) 9 SCC 1 to drive home the point that neither the Court can legislate, nor it has any competence to issue directions to the legislature to enact the law in a particular manner. Significantly, the Court also cited the recent ruling of Allahabad High Court in the case of Hindu Personal Law Board Thru Pres. Ashok Pandey (In person) vs. Union of Bharat Thru Secy. Home Affairs Ministry New Delhi P.I.L. Civil No. 2084 of 2021. In the above matter, which was also reported by Live Law, the Allahabad High Court had dismissed the plea for direction to Centre to consider legislating law regulating religious conversion along the lines of up love-jihad law. In this matter, the Court had observed that Courts have very limited role with regard to judicial legislation since neither the Courts can legislate nor they have any competence to issue directions to legislature to enact a law in a particular manner. Further, the Court had concluded by saying, “No direction can be issued for enacting any legislation in any particular manner by High Courts under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.” In related news, Madras High Court had recently ordered that an expert autopsy be conducted on the body of a health worker, as per AEFI guidelines as his wife alleged that he died after getting COVID vaccination. Case title – Gajendra Singh Yadav v. Union Of India And Another [Public Interest Litigation (PIL) No. – 118 of 2021] Click Here To Download OrderRead OrderNext Storylast_img