Dialogic Jurisdiction III / The Revival of Ray LXXXIV

Posted on by Rudrajyoti Nath Ray

Court in a series of decisions has reiterated, Courts should not rush in where even scientists and medical experts are careful to tread. We cannot evolve a judicial policy on medical issues. However, Court certainly must defend assertion of fundamental rights against Executive tyranny draped in disciplinary power [Pyarali K. Tejani v. Mahadeo Ramchandra Dange, (1974) 1 SCC 167].

To be vaccinated or not is entirely a choice. Nobody can be forcefully vaccinated as it would result in bodily intrusion and violation of individual’s right to privacy, protected under Article 21. However, if there is a likelihood of such individuals spreading infection, thereby affecting communitarian health at large, Government can impose reasonable and proportionate limitations on individual rights.

We aren’t impeding, in any manner, lawful exercise of power by Executive to take suitable measures which may also take form of restrictions on unvaccinated people.

– Hon’ble Justice L. Nageswara Rao, Jacob Puliyel v. Union of India, [Writ Petition (Civil) No. 607 of 2021] decided on 02.05.2022.

Dialogue

'The Last Word' seeks to include not only wise and witty sayings but also curiosities. These words are not of obligation but of delight. I am not alone in my refusal to believe, law is tedious. For all who escaped these percipient eyes, mea culpa maxima. History, after all, has many cunning passages, contrived corridors and issues.