Bombay HC emphasized the need for door-to-door vaccination

The Bombay Supreme Court found at the hearing of a PIL requesting door-to-door vaccination, stating that an early decision on the center’s behalf could have saved lives through a surgical strike against the virus.

The bank found that while the center is making maximal decisions aimed at bringing benefit to the general public, they take action late, which delays benefits.

In the present petition, the bank referred to the centre’s near-home COVID vaccination policy, noting that even the centre’s affidavit (NEGVAC) considered door-to-door vaccination to be more appropriate than door-to-door vaccination.

The bank pointed out that the need for workers is not only needed at the borders, but also in the homes of vulnerable people. The bank stated that the virus is immune to reaching a person who does not leave their home, and therefore a surgical strike against the virus should be the preferred option.

The petitioner’s attorney pointed to the Kerala government’s new vaccination policy, which had issued guidelines for house-to-house vaccination for bedridden people. The lawyer also pointed out that there are people who ride bicycles to vaccinate villagers in Kashmir.

The bank asked the BMC how a Maharashtra politician managed to get stabbed at his home when he kept saying he was waiting for permission from the center. The bank compared the policies of Kerala and Maharashtra and noted that if Kerala did not wait for confirmation from the center, then why was Maharashtra waiting for it.

In response to questioning the court, the center announced that it would submit an SOP for house-to-house vaccination for the elderly and other bedridden people.

Comments are closed.