Delhi High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts


Delhi High Court: In a case where the Trial Court directed the tenants ‘appellants herein' to pay the defaults in rent, which was due in COVID, the Division Bench of Saurabh Banerjee, and Suresh Kumar Kait, JJ. upheld the same as the tenants willingly chose to retain the possession of the premises and as there was no clause in the Lease Deed giving any suspension, thus, the appellant was bound to pay the monthly charges to the landlord in terms of the clear stipulations contained in the Lease Deed.


The respondent-landlord had given the said premises on lease to the appellant-tenants to carry out authorized commercial activity like running a spa or any other activity vide a registered Lease Deed dated 18-12-2010 (‘Lease Deed') for a period of 15 years, commencing from 15-05-2010 to 14-05-2025. During the subsistence of the aforesaid Lease Deed, COVID-19 pandemic spread across India and the lockdown prevailed from March, 2020 for the ensuing months, thus resulting in non-payment of rent.

The respondent issued legal notice(s) on 20-04-2020, 11-05-2020 and 28-05-2020 for payment of rent, even offering suspension of payment for 60 days on compassionate grounds which went unanswered. The tenants, however, continued to stay on the premises till termination of the Lease Deed which was was thereby terminated vide notice 07-06-2020. A reply was sent to the landlord denying the liability by taking plea of force majeure as per Clause 14 of the Deed.


An application under Order XIII A Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (‘CPC') r/w Section 151, CPC read with Section 3 Commercial Courts Act, 2015 ‘Order XIII A application' was filed by the landlord which was decreed in favour of them. Being aggrieved, the appellant challenged the impugned judgement on three basic grounds.

1. The Trial court had overlooked the fact that the premises was ‘unfit to use' alleging thereby that because of the then prevailing lockdown situation during the period in dispute and passing of different circular(s) issued by various Government(s) from time to time the appellant was unable to carry on the activity of running a Spa from the said premises.

2. The Trial Court had wrongly applied the provision of Section 108(e) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 even though the parties were admittedly bound by the terms of the Lease Deed executed inter-se and that the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 was not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case.

3. As there was no commercial use of the premises permissible and/ or possible during the aforesaid period in the dispute before the learned trial court, the respondent was not entitled to rent for the said period.

What is Order XIII A CPC?

The Court noted that the said provision of Order XIII A was introduced in the CPC by way of an amendment in the year 2015 with respect to all kinds of commercial disputes only. The said Order XIII A, CPC is a provision enabling the courts to take up and decide claim(s) in the commercial disputes without recording oral evidence, i.e., without following the ordinary procedure to be adopted and followed in an ordinary suit. Two fundamental grounds which have to be satisfied while deciding an Order XIII A application are that a party has to show that the other party has no real prospect of succeeding in and/ or defending the claim and that there is no other compelling reason as to why the claim should not be disposed of before commencement of trial, i.e., recording of oral evidence.

Observation and Analysis

The Court noted that on a careful analysis, it emerges that the provision of Order XIII A, CPC has been specifically introduced by the Legislature so as to adjudicate and decide the issue(s) at the threshold itself without proceeding to the unnecessary rigors of a prolongated trial and to save time, effort and money by making it more convenient and expeditious for all concerned, be it the court(s) and/ or the parties involved. Furthermore, an Order XIII A application can be allowed, and a court can proceed to pass a summary judgment if a party has a real prospect of succeeding and/ or defending in the claim and there is no real purpose of proceeding to trial, i.e., recording oral evidence.

The Court further noted that the appellant is merely trying to reagitate the same issues in the form of grounds which have all been heard, taken note of and decided by the Trial Court in the impugned judgment, by simply giving a different flavour to them.

The Court observed that there clearly exists a relationship of respondent-landlord and the appellant-tenant and they are bound by terms of Lease Deed. Since the appellant neither chose to exercise his right to terminate the Deed nor chose to vacate the said premises until termination, thus, there is no such clause in the Deed to claim non-payment of rent. Thus, the appellant was well and truly liable to pay the lease rentals as per the Lease Deed along with interest thereon for the period in issue.

On the issue of the premises being unfit for use due to COVID and the then prevailing lockdown, the Court opined that the premises were always fit to use, and the appellant was free to carry on any kind of commercial activity barring running a Spa. The Court premised this on a well settled law that temporary non-use of premises during the lock down period cannot be construed as rendering either the stipulated term of the Lease Deed void or giving any benefit to the tenant to claim suspension of rent on the ground of mere non-use thereof.


The Court remarking that Section 108(e) of The Transfer of Property Act, 1882 is inapplicable to the facts of the instant case, held, as the appellant willingly chose to retain the possession of the premises and as there was no clause giving any respite to it, the appellant was bound to pay the monthly charges to the respondent in terms of the clear stipulations contained in the Lease Deed.

[Siddhatha Singh v. Ajit Singh Bawa, 2022 SCC OnLine Del 2007, decided on 12-07-2022]

Advocates who appeared in this case :

Mr. Harsh Gokhale, Advocate, for the Appellant.

*Arunima Bose, Editorial Assistant has reported this brief.

Uttarakhand High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

Uttaranchal High Court: Alok Kumar Verma, J. rejected three bail applications of the applicants who were in custody for the offence under Sections 188, 269, 270, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B of IPC, Section 3 of the Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897 and Section 53 of the Disaster Management Act, 2005.

Informant, Chief Medical Officer, Haridwar lodged an FIR on 17-06-2021 with the allegations that a complaint was made by a person to the Indian Council of Medical Research (in short, “I.C.M.R.”) that his Aadhar Card Number and Mobile Number were used for conducting Rapid Antigen Test, but, no sample was given by him. The said complaint was sent back by the I.C.M.R. to the Health Department of Uttarakhand on 14-05-2021. Evidence were found to the effect that the name of the sample collection centre for Rapid Antigen Test was shown as “M/s. Max Corporate Service Kumbh Mela” and sample was tested by “Nalwa Laboratories Pvt. Ltd.”, Hisar. The accused persons were partners of “M/s. Max Corporate Services” who had executed an MoU with “Nalwa Lab”, Hisar and “Dr. Lalchandani Lab”, Delhi stating that their company is registered under the Companies Act, 1956.

Applicant-accused had submitted an affidavit stating therein that “Dr. Lalchandani Labs”, and “Nalwa Laboratories Pvt. Ltd.” belonged to him and by misleading the Kumbh Mela Officer, got the contract for testing of Covid-19 from the Government, whereas, their firm was not authorized to conduct test for Covid-19 as per the guidelines of ICMR due to lack of testing lab with their firm. The applicants had prepared forged testing report, uploaded on Web-portal of I.C.M.R. and submitted bills of about Rs.4 Crore, out of which, they had withdrawn Rs.15,41,670/-.

The Court stated that the Society has a vital interest in grant or refusal of bail because, criminal offence is the offence against the society. The Court relied on the Supreme court cases of Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan, (2004) 7 SCC 528, State of U.P. v. Amarmani Tripathi, (2005) 8 SCC 21 where it was held that law in regard to grant or refusal of bail is very well settled. The court granting bail should exercise its discretion in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course.

The Court also mentioned the case of Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh, (2002) 3 SCC 598 stating that dealing with an application for bail, there is a need to indicate in the order, reasons for prima facie considering why bail is being granted.

The Court further was of the opinion that it would be inappropriate to discuss the evidence in depth at this stage. At this stage, detailed appreciation of evidence shall affect the trial. But, from the perusal of the evidence, collected during the investigation by the Investigating Officer, it prima facie appears that the applicants-accused persons were involved in this crime.

The bail applications were rejected finding no good grounds for enlarging the applicants on bail.[Ashish Vashisth v. State of Uttarakhand, 2022 SCC OnLine Utt 219, decided on 25-03-2022]

Counsel for the Applicant: Mr Arvind Vashisth, assisted by Mr Hemant Singh Mehra, counsel holding brief of Mr Shubhr Rastogi

Counsel for the State: Mr T.C. Agarwal assisted by Mr Rohit Dhyani

Suchita Shukla, Editorial Assistant has reported this brief.

ArticlesMental Health

In the midst of winter, I found there was, within me, an invincible summer.

Albert Camus

With the Government directing a countrywide lockdown in 2020, our movement got restricted to our homes. But the question was: did our life really get restricted in these times? For me, even with this lockdown/pandemic, my mind simply refused to be locked down. In fact, it was blooming. Blooming with thoughts, which, now when I think, were always part of my subconscious but it is during the last two years that I thought about them, may be, consciously.


Life has always been known to be unpredictable. The fragility and vulnerability of life is experienced in moments of loss whether personal or public. Or pandemics like we are currently facing, which bring us close to this reality. What is certain, is death. The fear of the unknown, does not allow us to live, live in the present. We mostly live our lives cribbing about the past, fearing about our future and completely forgetting about in the moment, which is now. It is well said that crisis like situations serve as an intense reminder to each one of us to pause, reflect, and take stock of our priorities. It forces us to put things in perspective, challenges us to expand our understanding of how things work, and connects us with one another in a profound way.


I frankly have nothing to complain from this pandemic. I am nothing but grateful. But does that mean I have had a gala time, sitting in my pyjamas all day, getting my fat pay cheque at the end of every month? The answer is no.


According to me, the kind of complex lives we are all leading today, is not sustainable. I would be lying if I would say that everyday was all normal for me in these last two years, in fact, in the last couple of years. Working from home; handling a toddler; doing all odd jobs; household chores; juggling between work and home can make anyone go crazy. It is even more difficult if you are the kinds who enjoys her work; wants a career and is ambitious.


This time gave me the kind of churning/the manthan that I really required. This period brought me close to myself. It gave me a perspective to a lot of things which were missing in my life. Had it not been for this period, I would have may be continued to live my life through distractions, like the most of us do today, pushing the burning questions to the next day and to the next day, and before we know it, its time. It is these times, which made me spend time with my daughter, the kind of time she and I deserved. I could see her grow. We have created memories together. I got to spend time with my family. Most basic but true in my case, I got to enjoy my house, where in the last 14 years, I came only, may be, to sleep. I got the time to go back to things I once loved doing. Amongst others, I got back to writing. The question was, “did anyone stop me from doing what I did in the last two years or was I (with my conditioning), the real hindrance to my own growth?”


Having had a career, most would envy, there were aspects which were unsettling for me. When I would sit by myself, I would constantly travel back through my time machine to the happy times spent as a junior to Justice Kaul and wished how I could go back to that time. This is, when (1) I have had the pleasure of working with some of the bright minds at my workplace; (2) I had a family like team; and (3) had an overall healthy work environment. A deeper introspection made me realise that through these years, I had completely lost sight of and moved away from the reasons why I chose to do law in the first place. Amongst other reasons, I was unhappy for I had trapped myself to the conditioning of the society and did not know how to detangle from that web. I had a life way too comfortable to let go. It is the social construct of our society, I feel which somewhere makes you tick the boxes, which if given a choice to redo, you would not have wanted to tick. An evening out with friends to a fancy restaurant with your exquisite jewels/clothes on, in an ostentatious car is a great distraction, but when you are back home, to yourself, behind those close doors, when no one is watching, having a conversation with self, the thought of, “what am I doing? Is this what I really want? Is this how it is going to be for the rest of my life?” can be troubling, sometimes engulfing. Until the next day, you return back to normal. But the question is, is it normal?


Another blow came around when I saw people close to me in our fraternity dealing with their struggles quietly. Through different conversations, I realised that as lawyers, often what we fundamentally miss is that acting as sounding boards to clients, we get vicariously affected. We do not want to acknowledge that there is a problem and/or deal with the root cause, we are happy with finding distractions. That is why, that drink in the evening is so important for us.  I still remember, as a young member of the Bar, the first guiding principle told to me by my senior was, “… do not get attached to a brief, it would be the biggest mistake of your life”. I understand it fully well now. Even before we know it, being a constant ear to all the problems brought to our attention, can get to us. After all we are humans not Gods/demi-Gods.


I feel, while this issue has always been there, the pandemic, made us confront it at close quarters from where there was no running away. It was a dormant volcano waiting to be erupted. One comforting factor through this manthan was that I was not alone. I felt that to each one of us, the reasons may be different; causes may be different, struggle may be different, but, one common thread that binds us is that there is a problem which needs to be brought to the forefront and needs to be addressed. And interestingly, it is not a problem restricted to a particular set of lawyers. It is equally relevant for all members of the legal fraternity be it the judiciary; senior counsels; in-house counsels; lawyers working in law firms; independent counsels as well as law students. Each one with their own unique story to narrate.


I feel, to bring about a change, changes have to be brought both at the community level as also at an individual level.

At a community level, we need to recognise and realise our interdependence on each other. A collective conversation about the well-being of those around us is necessary. It is imperative to shatter stigmas, initiate serious and concerted conversations and a collaborative public-private-social partnership approach to redress issues concerning mental health and well-being in the legal fraternity.


They say, be the change you want to see. At an individual level, I think, we need to ask ourselves this question, “what are those small little changes that I can make to my life or rather would want to make to my life to see a better me”.


Solution is within us not outside but are we ready for it is the real question. Try to understand and accept your cause. Having no reason at all is also ok. Is it stemming out of an emotional blockage/baggage giving you a feeling of insecurity; fear; guilt, yearning for sympathy of others; ignorance of true knowledge; worry about the future; inability to focus and work to your own perfection or a combination of these or more factors or none at all.


At this juncture, I am reminded of the famous Jagjit Singh’s gazal, “Tum itna jo muskura rahe ho, kya gam hai jise chipa rahe ho.…” Its time, that for once, we remove the supermen/superwomen’s robes that as lawyers the society has bestowed us with and remind ourself that we are human beings. Being human is our greatest responsibility towards ourself. There is one life to live which each one of us should live without any fetters.


Through my little realisation, I have learnt to take pride in who I am, accept myself, my journey, organise my priorities, be kind to myself, make the conscious choices that I feel are relevant and important to me (and not because the society expects me to). It is only when I would respect myself, love myself that I would be able to grow and evolve and help others around me, else I would remain stuck to the clutches of the society.


It is time that we ask ourselves, “is our life determined by our conscious intentions and deliberate choices, or are we mechanically reacting to the world around us?”


To end, let me quote Nora Roberts,

“if you do not go after what you want, you will never have it. If you do not ask, the answer is always no. If you do not step forward, you are always in the same place”.


You decide, the choice is yours.

† Independent counsel and Arbitrator. She is also a Trained Mediator; Former Partner, Disputes, Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas.


The Ministry of Finance has exempted the covid vaccines, when imported into India, from the whole of the duty of customs leviable vide notification dated the September 29th, 2021.

This notification shall come into force on October 1st, 2021 and remain in force up to and inclusive of the 31st December, 2021.


*Tanvi Singh, Editorial Assistant has reported this brief.

Foreign LegislationLegislation Updates

The Ohio Department of Health has released guidelines for administering booster shots of the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine across the state. Key points of the guidelines are:

  • Pfizer booster shots are now available for people who have gone six months past completing their second dose of the vaccine.
  • According to the guidance, the criteria for people eligible to get booster shots are:
    1. Ages 65 years and older or residents in long-term care settings should receive a booster shot.
    2. Ages 50 to 64 with certain underlying medical conditions should receive a booster shot.
    3. Ages 18 to 49 with certain underlying medical conditions may receive a booster shot based on their individual benefits and risks.
    4. Age 18 and older who are at increased risk for COVID-19 exposure and transmission because of their job or living in an institutional setting may receive a booster shot based on their individual benefits and risks.


*Tanvi Singh, Editorial Assistant has reported this brief.

Kerala High Court
Case BriefsCOVID 19High Courts

Kerala High Court: Finding it shocking and unbelievable that were 278 attacks against Doctors, Nurses and Healthcare Workers in the State of Kerala, the Division Bench of Devan Ramachandran and Kauser Edappagath, JJ., stated that,

“The attacks on Health Care Workers or an attempt to intimidate or threaten them, for whatever be the reason can never be condoned or tolerated.”

Pursuant to frequent incidents of violence against medical practitioners in the State of Kerala and various orders of the Court, the State government had proposed following suggestions:

“1. CCTV should be installed in all hospitals, initially and a feed shall be given to Police AID Post

  1. At the institution level, security in charge officer to be nominated by the Superintendent of Hospital.
  2. The paramedical staff and others to be given security related training by coordinating with the Superintendent of the Hospital.
  3. All further appointments of security personnel, especially for Casualty and Out Patient Department (OPD) areas shall only be from Ex-Serviceman Society/organizations.”

Noticeably, around 278 cases had been registered under the provisions of the Kerala Health Care Service Persons and Health Care Service Institutions (Prevention of Violence and Damage to Property) Act, 2012 of which 232 of such cases had been charge-sheeted and 28 were under investigation.

The Indian Medical Association and Association of Private Medical Hospitals submitted that, in spite of the earnest efforts taken by the Government instances of attacks on Doctors and Nurses are still continuing, mainly because of the delay in investigation and conclusion of the proceedings on the crimes registered; and also because the Police are often lax in responding to their plea for assistance or protection. It was also submitted that sometimes certain vexatious messages in the social media give rise to misunderstanding on the working of a particular hospital, which leads to untoward incidents, but that the Police are slow in responding to it.

Noticing that there was nothing on record to suggest whether steps had already been implemented, apart from saying that they had been proposed, the Bench stated that all the steps which we have extracted above, require to be effectively implemented. Opining that it is only sensitization and education that the citizens be made aware that their actions against Doctors and Nurses would invite penal consequences under the provisions of the Act would ease the situation, the Bench said,

“we have not come across any public messages or news releases from the side of the Government informing the public that such attacks would attract very severe penalties the Government to ensure that the provisions of the Act are made known to the public at large, including by giving publicity in the premises of the hospitals and also by giving it good circulation through the Mainline and Online media.”

Hence, the State Police Chief was directed to ensure that necessary instructions are given to all the Station House Officers to react swiftly and quickly in case of any complaint being made to them by the hospitals and make adequate arrangements for disseminating information about penal consequences of violence against medical practitioners.

Additionally, on being informed that the Government had brought out an order (G.O (Rt)No.1750/2021/H&FWD) dated 16-08-2021, whereby certain fees and charges were prescribed for treatment of patients suffering from “post COVID complications”; the Bench asked the government to explain the necessity for having issued the order, particularly when post COVID complications – by its very nature – indicate problems that arises out of COVID-19 infections. [Kerala Private Hospitals Association v. State of Kerala, RP No. 379 of 2021, decided on 09-09-2021]

Kamini Sharma, Editorial Assistant has reported this brief.

Appearance by:

For The Petitioners: Syam Divan (Senior Advocate) along with K. Anand, Advocates

For State Of Kerala: Advocate General & Government Pleader

For Union of India: P. Vijayakumar, Assistant Solicitor General of India

For Indian Medical Association (IMA): S. Gopakumaran Nair (Senior Advocate) along with Sri.Suraj T.Elenjikkal,

For Private Medical Practitioners Association: M/S.M.Gopikrishnan Nambiar, K.John Mathai, Joson Manavalan, Kuryan Thomas, Paulose C. Abraham & Raja Kannan,

For State Police Chief: M. Ajay, Sri.S. Kannan, Senior Government Pleader


Ms Ashima Gulati, a law graduate (2016) from National Law Institute University (NLIU), Bhopal. Right after her law school she started working as an Associate in the Securities, Capital Markets, and Corporate Group at Khaitan & Co., Mumbai but discontinued in 2019 to switch her career path. She is currently a teaching fellow at Teach for India and also an impact fellow at Global Governance Initiative. She is also a co-founder of #HumHongeKaamayaab, an initiative that works for Covid-19 vaccination in India. She has been nominated for India’s COVID Soldier award, organised by The Better IndiaIn this conversation, she talks about the world for law graduates which lie beyond the corporate sector.

She has been interviewed by Vranda Agarwal, Campus Ambassador for National Law Institute University, Bhopal.

I. Can you please introduce yourself and give us a glimpse of your law school journey?

My name is Ashima Gulati, and I was born and brought up in Punjab. I am a first-generation lawyer, and one of the few students from my city at the time who have appeared in and cracked CLAT.

Since my first year itself, I was certain that I would participate in all kinds of co-curricular and extra-curricular activities that were present to understand my own interests, likes and dislikes. This led me to participate in various moot court, debate, arbitration and negotiation competitions and sports and cultural events. I developed a keen interest in moot court competitions, particularly international law, and participated and did reasonably well at Philip C. Jessup Moot Court Competition, amongst others. I also ensured that such activities do not overshadow my academic learning. During my law college, I have interned at law firms, an NGO and a lawyer’s chamber. Such a diverse experience guided me in leveraging my strengths and working upon my weaknesses. I made an informed decision of pursuing a career at a law firm, and worked on my knowledge and skill set accordingly.

I am a sports enthusiast and was the first female co-convenor of the sports society of my university. Further, I have also held positions of responsibilities in other societies in the university, including heading the IPR society in my final year. It has been 5 years since I graduated from NLIU, Bhopal, and I cherish and reminisce my five years spent at the university with utmost happiness and hope to visit it soon.

II. Please tell us about the journey that began once the glittery college life ended. Looking at your career trajectory, you have tried and tested, experimented with varied career roles. How did you navigate through them?

In my 4th year, I got a pre-placement offer (PPO) at the Mumbai office of Khaitan & Co., which was a good milestone to achieve as a student. I worked in its securities and capital markets team for almost 3 years, and gained a great sense of accomplishment and experience at that stage of my life. However, my quest for upskilling and problem solving made me inquisitive to look beyond a corporate job. After quitting Khaitan & Co., I took time off to comprehend my KSMs and identify career opportunities which would be able to nurture and hone my skills better. In the meantime, I ensured to acquire as much knowledge as I could about foreign policy, international development, public policy, and enrolled myself in various learning courses. I also utilised my break in applying the acquired knowledge by participating in various workshops and conferences. Such an investment helped me gauge my natural inclination towards impact sector, and thereby I applied for the prestigious Teach for India Fellowship. I was fortunate to have been accepted into one of the most challenging and life-changing fellowships that any organisation has to offer. I am currently in my second year of the fellowship, and I am already working towards my next career move in the impact sector.

I believe it is human nature to get extremely comfortable in a phase and to then just be tied up in your own comfortable zone. It takes a lot of courage and confidence to break such barriers and to take the risk of being in a zone of unknown. I would say my courage and support from my family and friends has helped me navigate through every decision I have made in my career, and having a sense of ownership to my own mistakes has strengthened my confidence to navigate through such a career transition.

III. How has your experience with Khaitan & Co. shaped you and please share the highs and lows during your tenure?

During my time at Khaitan & Co., I was fortunate to be involved in a diverse range of market deals and securities products. The deals varied from public deals to private deals, and involved well-known and reputed corporate brands in India and abroad, with unique and complex issues to be addressed. I have had a great learning experience working at Khaitan & Co., and my work ethics have grown and strengthened during my tenure.

IV. Please tell us about the switch that you made from a completely different field of securities and capital markets to the impact sector. What was the motivation behind it and what all hardships did you face with this decision?

The decision to transition from capital markets to impact sector did not happen overnight for me. I have taken a number of steps before making an informed decision of switching my career path. After quitting Khaitan & Co. in 2019, I took a work break before diving into another law firm job. I utilised this break to not just relax and rejuvenate but also to catch up on my other interests, including painting and reading. I thoroughly enjoy reading news. I believe such interests motivated me to acquire more knowledge and perspective about emerging career paths. Over the course of few months, I was learning about foreign policy, international development and public policy, and was really enjoying working on case studies for building my problem-solving skill set. I would say one thing led to the other, and I ended up realising that I am interested in learning and working in the impact sector, and I believed that I weighed in my options before making a career switch. It was definitely a challenging decision to make in light of my comfort at a law firm and its perks however, it was a decision that made a lot of sense to me. It was difficult for my friends and family members to understand the rationale behind the career change but given it was an informed decision that I was making, they supported me throughout. It has been more than 1 year since I have transitioned to impact sector, and I am challenged with different issues almost every day, which requires a combination of skills and values, including research, problem solving, courage and compassion.

V. Many students face a sort of unsaid pressure to join corporate firms during their law school and are often skeptical about the alternate career paths that might on the face seem challenging. How to avoid this dilemma?

I believe every career path has its own advantages and disadvantages. Sometimes, as a young student, we tend to give in to the most common career choice amongst our peers for a number of reasons. It is perfectly fine to make a career decision based upon your comfort or that you do  not want to explore the unknown territory. I believe it is a matter of choice and one should make an informed decision in making that choice. I would say to weigh in pros and cons before making any such decision, and to identify the exact cause or reason for making a choice. Once you are certain that you have a reason for following a career path and not just an illusion or peer pressure, you would be much more comfortable with the decision that you make vis-à-vis your career. It is not necessary that the reason for joining a law firm or other career option would make sense to another person but it should make sense to you. It is also important to understand that choices can change anytime. You can start working in one career path and transition into another after sometime. All that is important is that you have made an informed decision and not just followed someone’s career decisions blindly.

VI. Since you are working with the impact sector which is known for its challenging construct. How did you overcome these challenges and hardships? Also, please tell us how the law has helped you move ahead in this journey.

During the initial months of my fellowship at Teach for India, every day would bring a new issue for one or the other families of my students. The issues would be either financial, physical or emotional in nature. I have had check-ins with the families, where the elders have had breakdowns due to the obstacles they were facing in life. Suddenly from a very comfortable law firm job, I found myself in extremely difficult and sensitive situations. I believe my understanding of my own strengths and limitations has helped me in each of such sensitive moments. I grew up from reacting to such issues to responding to such problems. I strongly believe in the power of collective action and strategic thinking, and I would say that such skill and mindsets helped in finding my footing in the impact sector and to rise to the never-ending challenges. Legal education has empowered me in building and honing such skills, in addition to building up my knowledge to address such issues. The work ethics and learnings from my tenure at Khaitan & Co. has supported me to perform better in a more effective and efficient manner. I believe if I am able to perform well now, credit is to also be given to my earlier experiences and learnings at law school and Khaitan & Co.

VIII. Your passion to work for the under-resourced community is evident through the various projects like #HumHongeKaamayaab and legal education awareness projects that you are working on. Please share your experiences with the community. Law as a subject is very closely linked to society at large, what would be your suggestion for all the young lawyers who are passionate to work for the underprivileged. What can be the possible contributions even without taking it up as a full-time career?

I started my Teach for India Fellowship in July 2020, right in the middle of the pandemic and lockdown restrictions. The pandemic exposed the actual depth of inequity and divide that exists in India between the different economic brackets of citizens. With the imposition of lockdown in India, we saw an exodus of migrant workers along with their children from smart cities to villages on foot. The immediate need for a greater percentage of students in India was to secure safe shelter and constant supply of food. Regardless, we saw a sudden and immediate shift in education policies towards digital/virtual learning, with the assumption that each student in our country has access to a smartphone or an uninterrupted access to internet. What appeared to be an easy reality of learning for a few was indeed a far-fetched dream for the majority of students in India. My students who have migrated and/or have survived the lockdown restrictions with a daunting fear of lack of food needed more than the basic construct of education. The students from better economic brackets have received enhanced learning during this time whereas, for the majority of our students, we have experienced a setback in their learning, development and growth. The lockdown restrictions, though a necessary evil, has created an emotional damage to our students, which sought our immediate attention. My first few months as a fellow were invested in collecting data about my students, their families and their well-being. Through Teach for India and additional support, I have been able to ensure each of my students have an access to a smartphone with monthly internet recharges, and ration supply as well. During the lockdown, I was also personally involved in securing and negotiating rental arrangements for the families. I have also been able to search for and provide for various job opportunities to the family members of the students affected by the pandemic and lockdown restrictions. With the support of my legal peers, I have assisted a few families in their legal disputes as well. All of such efforts are in addition to my working as a teaching fellow to my 60+ students, for whom I am deeply motivated and invested in ensuring that each one of them receives excellent education resulting in their holistic development.

I also work for the community at large, and have initiated a number of welfare projects aimed at creating awareness and providing access to the welfare schemes and policies. One of such projects is #HumHongeKaamayaab which was made public on 29-4-2021 with a clear aim of getting 100% Covid-19 vaccination amongst under-resourced communities in India. In the last few months, we have been able to reach out to more than 19,000 individuals by creating and spreading Covid-19 vaccination awareness, and have assisted more than 500 individuals in the vaccination process. Additionally, we have successfully vaccinated more than 200 individuals. We have recently adopted a new working model to organise medical expert sessions for our NGO partners. In the month of August alone, we have trained over 1500 individuals across PAN India, who shall further train and counsel local communities to get Covid-19 vaccination. I am humbled with the support #HumHongeKaamayaab has received in the last 3.5 months from civil society organisations and individuals. We have officially partnered with over 15 partners operating in States PAN India. It was truly gratifying to see #HumHongeKaamayaab being featured in Max India Foundation’s April-June Newsletter.

I have also started a legal education awareness project with the aim of creating awareness about legal education and law as a career option for the students belonging to under-resourced communities in India. As a lawyer, I believe it is my duty to create awareness about the benefits that legal education has to offer, and to work towards ensuring inclusive education for all.

I believe that knowledge and information are essential means to ensuring equity, and legal education plays an important role in providing access to such knowledge and information. There are various career paths that a law graduate can undertake if one is passionate about working in the social sector, such as practising litigation for marginalised and vulnerable sections of the society, consulting for the Government and NGOs in policy and implementation sector, working in an NGO or a social enterprise, amongst others. If one is unable to dedicate full time then volunteer options are always available at NGOs and social enterprises, wherein one can work accordingly to their availability. During the second wave, we saw a number of student led projects and organisations work in providing Covid-19 relief, and I believe we all have the will and motivation to work for the society. I believe that my legal education and work experience has always been an advantage for me in comprehending and working through my new career path.

IX. Any message that you would like to share with all those struggling with career decisions.

I believe it is essential to trust your own gut when it comes to making career decisions. It is a good practice to take career advice and learn from others mistakes but it is all very subjective. What works for others might not work for you and may not even be the best thing for you. I would rather suggest to research about each of the career paths that interests you in terms of comparable measures, and to also identify your weaknesses and strengths and evaluate how well does your attributes work in a given career path. Whatever career path that you choose, just ensure that you have made an informed decision and not just blindly followed the common trend.

I also want to emphasise on the point that one can change a career choice at any stage of life so, let us not overburden and overwhelm the young students to make life decisions at the start of their careers. It is okay to not know which career decision is better for you at the start of your career. This is a lifelong decision, which will keep on evolving at different life stages, so just take an informed decision and enjoy the work that you do.

COVID 19Legislation UpdatesNotifications

The Director General of Foreign Trade, Ministry of Commerce and Industry has provided the procedure and criteria for applying for export of Covid-19 Rapid Antigen Testing kits notified vide circular dated August 17, 2021. Through circular dated August 16, 2021, DGFT had restricted the export of COVID-19 Rapid antigen test kits [Read our previous story HERE]. Now, the quota for export of Covid-19 Rapid Antigen Testing kits during July, August & September has been fixed to be 1176 lakh kits.

The online applications for export of Covid-19 Rapid Antigen Testing kits shall be submitted between August 20, 2021 and August 30, 2021. The validity of export license will be for 6 months only.


*Tanvi Singh, Editorial Assistant has reported this brief.

Case BriefsSupreme Court

Supreme Court: In a postscript to its 188-pages long judgment in Ajit Mohan v. Delhi Legislative Assembly (wherein it was held that representatives of Facebook will have to appear before the Committee constituted by Delhi Legislative Assembly for looking into Facebook’s role in aggravating Delhi Riots which broke out last year), the 3-Judge Bench of Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Dinesh Maheshwari, and Hrishikesh Roy, JJ. stressed upon the need for timely disposal of cases. The way forward, in dealing with the likely post-COVID surge in number of cases pending adjudication, was also discussed.

The Court said that the purpose of the postscript was only to start a discussion among the legal fraternity by bringing to notice the importance of succinctly framed written synopsis in advance, and the same being adhered to in course of oral arguments to be addressed over a limited time period and more crisp, clear and precise judgments so that the common man can understand what is the law being laid down.

The Court expressed that COVID times have been difficult. The judiciary and the bar are no exception. It was noted that this was a contributing factor in there being a period of four months between reserving the judgment and pronouncing the order in the Ajit Mohan case. But this was not the only reason. The “saga of hearing” lasted 26 hours ─ which the Court said is “a lot of judicial time”. Daily time period was recorded. Apart from pleadings, there were written synopses, additional written synopses, rejoinders and replies filed liberally by both parties. The convenience compilations themselves were very voluminous, in contradiction to their very purpose.

Concern of the Court was if this is how the proceedings will go on in the future, “it will be very difficult to deal with the post-COVID period, which is likely to see a surge in the number of cases pending adjudication”. The Court then discussed “the way forward”.

Clarity in Thought Process

The Court said it believes that there needs to be clarity in the thought process on what is to be addressed before the Court. Counsels must be clear on the contours of their submissions from the very inception of the arguments. This should be submitted as a brief synopsis by both sides “and then strictly adhered to”.

Restriction on Time Period for Oral Submissions

The Court said that much as the legal fraternity would not want, restriction of the time period for oral submissions is an aspect that must be brought into force.

Instead of restricting oral arguments it has become a competing arena of who gets to argue for the longest time.

Looking into this aspect, the Court then referred to a few international best practices including Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights ─ which while recognising the right of fair trial and public hearing, qualifies it inter alia to be completed “within a reasonable time”. This is intrinsically linked to administering justice without delays.

The Court said that delay in judicial proceedings has been the bane of our country and there cannot be a refusal to part ways from old practices especially when they have outlived their purpose. It is the litigants who bear the costs of our complex and prolonged adjudicatory process.

Clear and Short Judgments

The Court was conscious of the “equal responsibility of this side of the bench”. “It is the need of the hour to write clear and short judgments which the litigant can understand”, the Court said. It was advised that:

The Wren & Martin principles of precis writing must be adopted.”  

But then, the Court was perplexed, as to how this is to be achieved if the submissions itself go on for hours on end with vast amounts of material being placed before the Court; with the expectation that each aspect would be dealt with in detail failing which review applications will be filed.

Use of Judicial Precedents

The Court noted that it is weighed down by judicial precedent. Often a reference is made to the judgment of the Privy Council or the earlier years of the Supreme Court which saw short and crisp judgments, but then the volume of precedents the Court faces today was not present then. In today’s technological age, all that is required is to instruct the junior counsel to take out all judgments on a particular point of view and submit it to the Court in a nice spiral binding. On every aspect, there may be multiple judgments.

The Court was of the opinion that if the proposition of law is not doubted by the Court, it does not need a precedent unless asked for. If a question is raised about a legal proposition, the judgment must be relatable to that proposition ─ and not multiple judgments. The other scenario is if the facts of the cited judgments are so apposite to the facts of the case that it could act as a guiding principle.

The contribution to the development of law can be nurtured by comprehensible precedent. There may be times when the complexity of matters gives rise to complex opinions. But the judgments are becoming more complex and verbose only on account of large number of precedents cited and the necessity to deal with them and not merely refer to them as is done in other countries.

Case Management

The Court recorded that case management has been discussed for long, but seldom is it followed in its true letter and spirit. This may possibly be because of the large volumes of cases, but then this is all the more reason for better management.

Referring to the US Supreme Court,  it was noted that there the norms and the traditions take care of the requirement of restrictive time frames to address submissions; which are preceded by the contours of arguments given in the written synopsis and the material sought to be relied upon.

The Court did not doubt that lawyers think on their feet but then, the Court said:

[G]iven the current milieu, there has to be clarity before the lawyers get on their feet keeping a little leeway in mind for something which may evolve during the arguments.

As of 1-5-2021, the Supreme Court of India had 67,898 pending matters. The Court expressed that the time spent on routine matters leaves little time to settle legal principles pending before larger Benches that may have an impact down the line on the judicial system.

Interim Proceedings

While concluding, the Court noted that another matter of concern is prolonged interim proceedings. In criminal matters, even bail matters are being argued for hours together and at multiple levels. The position is no different in civil proceedings where considerable time is spent at an interim stage when the objective should be only to safeguard the rights of the parties by a short order, and spend the time on the substantive proceedings instead which could bring an end to the lis rather than on the interim arrangement. In fact, interim orders in civil proceedings are of no precedential value. It was noted by the Court that this is the reason it is said that:

[W]e have become courts of interim proceedings where final proceedings conclude after ages ─ only for another round to start in civil proceedings of execution.

The Court ended by stating that by this post script it intended to start a discussion among the legal fraternity on the issues touched upon. [Ajit Mohan v. Delhi Legislative Assembly, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 456, decided on 8-7-2021]

Tejaswi Pandit, Senior Editorial Assistant has reported this brief.

Gauhati High Court
Case BriefsCOVID 19High Courts

Gauhati High Court: In a case related to the availability of oxygen and vaccination in the State of Nagaland the Division Bench comprising of Songkhupchung Serto and S. Hukato Swu, JJ., directed the state government to ramp up vaccination status for the health workers, Shopkeepers and vegetable vendors, journalists and judicial fraternity. The Bench remarked,

“They (health workers) are the people who are delivering the health service to the people; in case they are infected they will be the ones who will be spreading the virus to others.”

Considering the submissions made by Union and State counsels the Court was of the view that though vaccination is going on, availability of the vaccine is far short of the number of people that needs to be vaccinated in the State. The Bench stated that if the State has to fight the Covid war effectively and prevent the 3rd wave coming and causing so much suffering as the 2nd wave had done, the only way is ramping up vaccination and complete the same at the earliest. The Bench reminded the government that,

“The 3rd wave might be just standing at the door if vaccination is not done with speed and proper Covid behaviours are not followed.”

Therefore, directions were issued to the State and the Central Government to do all possible at their command to make the required number of doses of vaccination available in time so that vaccination could be carried out with speed and be completed at least within 3 months. Hence, the Health Department and State government were directed to come up with instructions to make the required number of doses of vaccine available within 3 months.

Noticing that nothing substantial had been done by the State with regard to Court’s order regarding vaccination of Shopkeepers and vegetable vendors since they are vulnerable section of the society who are also potential spreader of the virus due to the nature of their profession, the Bench warned the State government to take some pragmatic steps so that priority is given to these groups of people at the earliest. Concerning the health workers, the data submitted before the Court suggested that out of 25,000 plus only 15,000 plus had taken the vaccination and out of that 10,000 plus had taken their 2nd dose. Finding these figures concerning because these they are the people who are delivering the health service to the people, the Bench stated that in case they are infected they will be the ones who will be spreading the virus to others. The Bench further stated,

“We are aware of the fact that nobody can be forced to take vaccine unless they volunteer. However, the authorities should make sure that these health workers, in case they do not volunteer to take the vaccine, produce their testing certificate as and when they report for duties.”

The District Task Force was also directed to ensure that private hospitals also follow the same directions. Appreciating that vaccination camps had been organized at Secretariat and Directorate level regarding other Government servants, the Bench cautioned the Government and authorities concerned that no such camp had been organized the judicial fraternity.

Acknowledging the nature of work with regard to the journalist community, the Bench also directed that a special camp should also be organized for them.  Lastly, the Bench remarked, “since no one knows as to when this war against Covid will end, the Government should come up with some pragmatic plan so that office works are not affected for such a long time.”

[Kohima, In re., PIL (Suo Moto) 1 of 2021, decided on 30-06-2021]

Kamini Sharma, Editorial Assistant has reported this brief.

Appearance before the Court by:

Amicus Curiae: Mr. Taka Masa

Counsel for the State: Mr. K. Sema, Addl. Sr. Advocate General

Counsel for the Health Department: Mr. N. Mozhui

Counsel for Union of India: Ms. Akhala, ASGI

Case BriefsCOVID 19Tribunals/Commissions/Regulatory Bodies

The National Human Rights Commission,  India has taken cognizance of a complainant that the mass gatherings of protesting farmers, flouting Covid appropriate behaviour, are against the very rules/norms laid down by the Central Government and the advisory of the Commission itself as safeguards against the pandemic. Allegedly, the situation is likely to worsen day by day due to the increased inflow of the farmers at the sites of protests: they are not only putting their lives at risk but also posing a risk, as the potential carriers of the virus, to the others in the rural areas.

Accordingly, the Commission has issued notices to the Chief Secretaries of NCT of Delhi, Haryana and Uttar Pradesh to submit action taken reports regarding the steps taken to control the spread of Covid-19 infection at the protest sites of the farmers. The report is to be submitted within four weeks.

Issuing the notices, the Commission has observed that the country is passing through an unprecedented and scary second wave of Covid-19, which has already claimed more than three lakh human lives and is still raging virulently in different parts of the country.

It has further observed that the Central and State Governments are struggling against all odds to save lives in the face of inadequate health facilities. Measures like lockdowns, containment zones and Covid protocols are employed to somehow overpower the deadly Covid, which is now leading to other serious diseases like black fungus, white fungus etc. In these extraordinary circumstances, our sole aim has to be saving human lives.

The complainant has also stated that more than 300 farmers have died during this ongoing protests due to several reasons including Covid infections. The Cases of black fungus etc are also rising. He has sought intervention of the Commission apprehending that situation may become more worrisome as the farmers, in large numbers, are planning for observing 26th May, 2021 as the Black Day.

National Human Rights Commission

[Press Release dt. 25-05-2021]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Rajasthan High Court: The Division Bench of Sandeep Mehta and Devendra Kachhawaha, JJ., dismissed an application which was filed for temporary suspension of sentences on behalf of the infamous convict appellant Asharam, aged about 83 years.

The applicant-appellant was also facing trial in another case at Gujarat involving the offence under Section 376, Penal Code 1860 and was in custody in connection with the said case as well. He got infected by COVID-19 Virus while suffering Life Imprisonment at the Central Jail, Jodhpur and as a measure to provide treatment, he was shifted to the M.D.M. Hospital, Jodhpur. Since the health status of the convict appellant was not improving at the M.D.M. Hospital, he was shifted to the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), Jodhpur where he was provided complete treatment for COVID-19 infection as per protocol. In the intervening period, the appellant developed internal gastrointestinal bleeding as a result whereof, his haemoglobin dropped to critically low level and accordingly, he was provided treatment for the said disorder including blood transfusion, etc. Later on, as per the conclusion of the treating doctors at the AIIMS, Jodhpur, the condition of the applicant-appellant was stable and he was fit for discharge.

Counsel for the petitioner, Mr J.S. Choudhary, Sr. Advocate with Mr Pradeep Choudhary submitted that convict had expressed his desire in writing that he does not desire to take the allopathic line of treatment and instead, his followers may be allowed to set up a fully functional medical facility at his Ashram at Pal Village, Jodhpur so that he can be treated by Ayurveda and for the reason which if the sentences awarded to the appellant are suspended, he and his followers are ready and willing to abide by any condition which may be imposed by the Court.

The Court observed that there was no certificate/ opinion of the doctors that the ailments with which, the convict appellant was afflicted, can be treated by Ayurveda. The Court further observed that suspending the sentences awarded to the appellant in this case would be nothing short of an exercise in futility because immediately on his release from the Central Jail, Jodhpur, he would be required to be taken to State of Gujarat in connection with the case pending trial as a production warrant certainly would be in force.

The Court dismissed the application and held that the prayer is not tenable as the Court was cognizant of the fact that whenever the convict has been taken out from prison even for attending the dates of hearing during trial, his followers form huge congregations which create law and order situations and presently, the risk of spread of COVID infections would become imminent. The Court directed the district and jail administration to ensure that proper treatment was provided to the convict appellant at the suitable medical institution in light of the observations made in the medical reports/ certificates issued from the AIIMS, Jodhpur.

[Asharam v. State of Rajasthan, 2021 SCC OnLine Raj 451, decided on 21-05-2021]

Suchita Shukla, Editorial Assistant has put this report together 

For the petitioner: Mr J.S. Choudhary, Sr. Advocate with Mr Pradeep Choudhary

For the respondent: Mr Anil Joshi

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Allahabad High Court: Following the order given on 11th May by the Court which had directed that Pandemic Public Grievance Committee should be formed in each district, the Court noted that the government had filed an affidavit stating they had passed directions to form a committee in each district on 13th May, 2021.

As no guidelines were given by the state on how such committees would function the Court ordered that the Committee along with the District Nodal Officer who is appointed in every district by the State Government shall ensure that each and every grievance stands redressed within 24-48 hours. The Court also enlarged the scope of the Committee to look into the complaints of supply of oxygen to those who are in home isolation, the private hospitals and nursing homes of the district concerned.

Health Infrastructure of five districts

In the order dated 11th May, the Court had ordered district magistrates to submit data on health infrastructure in their districts. On perusal of the data, the Court had no hesitancy in stating that the infrastructure was lacking in urban areas to meet the needs of the city population and life saving gadgets were scarce in rural community health centres. Level 3 hospitals were lacking in most districts.

Taking the sample case of Bijnor, both in terms of health infrastructure and testing, the Court ordered the State Government to immediately improve and increase the testing methods of the rural population and the population of small cities and towns and also provide sufficient health care infrastructure.

Court observes State’s Health System is “Ram Bharose”

Taking the case of one (Late) Mr Santosh Kumar, 64, who was admitted in an isolation ward in Medical College, Meerut on 21st April. On 22nd April, he went to the washroom and fainted there. He was brought out and laid on a stretcher. Efforts were made to revive him but unfortunately he passed away. The doctor who admitted him in the hospital was the same doctor on duty that night, however neither that doctor and none of the other hospital staff could recognize the patient and his body was disposed of as an unidentified body. On this incident, the Court observed that

If this is the state of affairs of treatment at medical College in the city like Meerut then the entire medical system of the State pertaining to the smaller cities and villages can only be taken to be like a famous Hindi saying ‘Ram Bharose’

The Court further observed that:

‘A patient is admitted to the hospital in an absolute care of doctors and paramedical staff and if the doctors and para medical staff adopt such casual approach and show carelessness in the performance of their duty, then it is a case of serious misconduct because it is something like playing with the lives of innocent people’

Court emphasised on need to vaccinate each person in the state and improve health infrastructure

The Court gave the following suggestions to the state to improve vaccination rate in the state

  1. Those who would like to buy vaccines for the ‘have-nots’ should be allowed to do so and given benefit under the IT Act.
  2. Big business house who donate to religious organisations should be asked to divert fund for vaccines.
  3. Incentives should be given to local manufacturers who have the infrastructure to produce such vaccines.
  4. Big medical companies and even the government should produce vaccines on a large scale.

The Court observing that when it [health infrastructure of the state] cannot meet the medical requirements of our people in normal times then it definitely had to collapse in the face of the present pandemic, gave various suggestions for improving the health infrastructure of the state such as:

  1. All nursing homes should have an oxygen facility on each bed.
  2. Nursing homes/hospitals having more than 20 beds should have 40% beds reserved for ICU.
  3. Of the designated 40 per cent; 25 percent should have ventilators, 25 percent should have High Flow Nasal Cannula and 50 per cent of the 40 per cent reserved beds should have bipap machines
  4. Every hospital with more than 30 beds should have an oxygen production plant
  5. Medical colleges in Prayagraj, Agra, Meerut, Kanpur and Gorakhpur should have enhanced facilities as are there with the prestigious Sanjay Gandhi Postgraduate Institute within a period of four months. Emergency laws should be applied for the acquisition of land for them, autonomy and funds should be given to them to achieve the same.
  6. Community health centres in villages should have pathology services at par with Level 2 hospitals
  7. Every B and C grade town in the state should have 20 ambulances each and every village should have 2 ambulances with ICU facilities.

The Court stated that the viability of following the suggestions may be looked into at the highest level and a report should be submitted on the next date by the Health Secretary of both the Centre and the State. The Court directed appointment Nodal Officers by the District Judges of districts Bijnor, Bahraich, Barabanki, Shrawasti, Jaunpur, Mainpuri, Mau, Aligarh, Etah, Etawah, Firozabad and Deoria and asked them to submit a report in a week’s time. The date of next hearing was set at 22nd May, 2022.

[In-Re Inhuman Condition At Quarantine Centres And For Providing Better Treatment To Corona Positive, Public Interest Litigation No. 574 of 2020, decided on 17-05-2021].


Patna High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

Patna High Court: The Division Bench comprising of Sanjay Karol, CJ., and S. Kumar, J., opined that it is the settled position of law that the right to health, including access to basic medical infrastructure, is a facet of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which the State is duty-bound to provide. The Bench stated,

Failure on the part of a government hospital to provide timely medical treatment to a person in need of such treatment results in a violation of his right to life guaranteed under Article 21.

Relying on the decision of Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Common Cause (A Registered Society) v. Union of India, (2018) 5 SCC 1, the Bench reiterated that when it comes to interpretation of fundamental rights, the Court has to adopt a liberal, dynamic, extensive and interpretative approach and needless to add the right to life has to be with dignity is a settled principles of law. Reliance was also placed by the Court on the decision of Supreme Court in Union of India v. Mool Chand Kharaiti Ram Trust, (2018) 8 SCC 321,wherein it had been reiterated that the constitutional duty to develop “humanism” as envisaged under Article 51-A(h) applicable to the medical profession.

The counsel for one of the petitioners, Mr. Dinu Kumar informed the Court that the Medical Institutions, specified to deal with Covid-19, are lacking in infrastructure. Illustratively, he mentions that C.T. Scan Machines are either not installed or not fully functional/operational, be it for whatever reason.

Since the onset of the first wave of current Pandemic, the Court had been monitoring the position within the State. The Bench opined that the biggest challenge before the Government is to change the mindset of the people of Bihar and break the myth amongst the local populace that- Bihar Corona ko Khaa Gaya Hai. The various directions issued, policies framed and programmes propagated by the Central Government and the State Government under the provisions of Disaster Management Act, 2005 and Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897, needs to be highlighted, popularised and people need to be sensitised, both in the urban and rural areas by all modes of communications, including electronic and print media. The Bench suggested,

On a personal level Persons engaged in pursuing social beneficially schemes, can be asked to sensitize the general public in adhering the advisories issued, at least of wearing masks; maintaining social distancing; avoiding congregation at public places; and taking all precautions in dealing with the problems arising out of current Pandemic Covid-19.

Noticing that in Bihar, recovery rate improved up to 89.72%, above than the national recovery rate of 77.77 % and the death rate in Bihar was the lowest in the country. The Bench complimented the officials, who have wholeheartedly and dedicatedly devoted themselves to this battle against the corona virus. The Bench opined that as representatives of institutions and pillars of a democracy, it is the collectively responsibility of the Court to ensure that the people get help and are provided with the healthcare they need, especially in these times of great crisis. The Bench added,

None should lose life only on account of lack of adequate medical care. We would also be amiss if, right at the outset, we do not acknowledge the excellent work carried out by our doctors and other medical staff whom we had in previous litigation termed as our Guardian Angles.

In the attending circumstances, when the State is in a state of a medical emergency, for the State itself has imposed lockdown from 06-05-2021, the Bench opined that non-reporting of deaths by the functionaries under the Municipal Act and the Panchayat Act should also entail action for their removal on the ground of non-performance/discharge of their duties. Hence,

The public representatives must engage themselves at the grass-root level, for they are pretty familiar with the geography, demography and topography of their respective jurisdiction. to ensure that all deaths taking place within their respective jurisdictions, are immediately reported and certainly not later than 24 hours.

The Bench emphasized that in case of violation to report the deaths within 24 hrs, the Court would make sure to remove the official responsible for negligence from the service. With regard to the issue of hoarding/black-marketing of the medical equipment, including oxygen cylinder, the Bench directed the state to take necessary actions against the same.

Directions by the Court

In the above backdrop, the Bench issued following directions:

  1. The government hospitals are duty-bound to extend medical assistance for preserving human life. Failure on the part of even private hospitals to provide timely medical treatment to a person in need of such treatment results in a violation of his right to life guaranteed under Article 21.
  2. The public representatives as also the functionaries of the State under the Registration Act, Municipal Act and the Panchayat Act shall take all steps ensuring implementation of the Government policies, including immediate registration of deaths, more so in the rural areas of Bihar.
  3. All deaths must be reported within 24 hours. A true picture is essential for taking effective steps in defeating this pandemic Covid-19.
  4. The State need to shift the focus to the rural areas so as to ensure that none is deprived of the medical health infrastructure in connection with pandemic Covid-19.
  5. Government of India shall favourably consider the request seeking enhancement of the quota of oxygen cylinders and oxygen (LMO) within four days.
  6. Municipal authorities are directed to take steps for proper collection, treatment and disposal of waste generated from COVID patients in home isolation.
  7. The process of procuring C.T. Scan equipment is directed to be expedited.
  8. Government of Bihar shall file a fresh affidavit, furnishing complete information in a format (tabular chart) prepared by all the learned counsel in terms of our direction within next four working days.
  9. Fresh data be furnished to this Court, with respect to RTPCR, positivity rate and death etc., making clear the geographical locations, Urban and Rural designations and also, the number of (a) Covid Care Centres (CCC); (b) Dedicated Covid Health Centres (DCHC); (c) Dedicated Health Centre (DHC) or for that matter the private hospitals in each one of the districts.

[Shivani Kaushik v. Union of India, Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 353 of 2021, order dated 13-05-2021]

Kamini Sharma, Editorial Assistant has put this report together 

Advocates before the Court:

For the Petitioner/s: Shivani Kaushik (In Person)

For the UOI: Dr K.N. Singh (ASG)

For the State: Anjani Kumar, AAG-4

For the Respondent 5: Mrs Binita Singh

For Respondent 6: Shivender Kishore,

For PMC: Prasoon Sinha

For DMCH : Mr. Bindhyachal Rai, Advocate
For GMC : Mr. Rabindra Kr. Priyadarshi ,
For the Intervener : Mr. Rajiv Kumar Singh, Advocate

Case BriefsCOVID 19High Courts

Allahabad High Court: The division bench of Siddhartha Varma and Ajit Kumar, JJ. while hearing suo moto proceedings to examine the Covid 19 situation across the state of Uttar Pradesh, gave the following directions:

Creation of Pandemic Public Grievance Committee: The Court directed that a three member Pandemic Public Grievance Committee shall be formed in every district within 48 hours of the passing of this order. The committee would consist of Chief Judicial Magistrate or a judicial officer of similar rank to be nominated by the District Judge, Professor of a Medical College to be nominated by the Principal of Medical College and if there is no medical college then a level-3/4 doctor of district hospital to be nominated by Chief Medical Superintendent of that district hospital and an administrative officer of the rank of Additional District Magistrate to be nominated by the District Magistrate.

Submission of Details: The Court sought the following information from the districts of Bahraich, Barabanki, Bijnor, Jaunpur and Shravasti both at urban and rural level. (I) Number of city population; (2) Number of level-1 and level-3 hospitals with details of beds; (3) Number of doctors, anesthetists in level-2 level-3 hospital; (4) medical and paramedical staffs (5) Number of BiPAP machines and High Flow Nasal Cannula Masks (6) Number of rural population tehsil-wise, (7) Number of community health centres,(8) availability of beds in community health centres (9) number of life saving gadgets like High Flow Nasal Cannula Masks, BiPAP Machines; (10) Number of oxygen concentrators with capacity details in community health centres, (11) Number of medical and para-medical staffs. The Court also asked the state to disclose how many tests were conducted since 31st March.

Compensation to teachers, investigators and Shiksha Mitras who passed away on Election Duty: The Court was not happy with the Rs 30 lakh promised as compensation to the teachers, investigators and Shiksha Mitras who had passed away while on election duty. As per the Court, it was too meagre an amount and proposed that the amount should be atleast to the tune of 1 crore and asked the State Election Commision to rethink the compensation. The Court observed that it was a deliberate act on the part of the State and State Election Commission to force them to perform duties in the absence of RTPCR support and it was not the case that somebody volunteered to render his/ her services during election but it was all made obligatory to those assigned with election duty to perform their duties during election even while they showed their reluctance.

Inoculating physically handicapped people and illiterate: The Court asked the State government how it plans to inoculate the physically challenged persons who cannot make it to the vaccination centres and also those who are illiterate (both labour and villagers) who cannot register themselves on the COWIN app. The Court directed the State Government to explain as to what is the difficulty with it if it opts to a guideline to inoculate physically challenged persons even in the absence of the Central Government guidelines.

Fact-finding committee on death of Justice VK Srivastava: The Court directed the State Government to constitute a Committee to conduct a fact finding enquiry into the treatment administered to late Justice V.K. Srivastava and submit the report to this Court within two weeks. The Court noted that the documents show that the late judge was advised life saving drugs Remdesivir, however, the papers do not show whether actually he was administered Remdesiver or not, on the first day and subsequent two days.

The Court also questioned the State regarding the diet given to covid patients in Government hospitals and also directed that no coercive action should be taken against Sun Hospital, Lucknow till they decide on show cause notice given to the Hospital and its reply. The next hearing is to take place on 17th May, 2021. [In-Re Inhuman Condition At Quarantine Centres And For Providing Better Treatment To Corona Positive, 2021 SCC OnLine All 289, decided on 11-05-2021].

Case BriefsCOVID 19High Courts

Himachal Pradesh High Court: A Division Bench of Tarlok Singh Chauhan and Chander Bhusan Barowalia, JJ passed directions against the respondents in addition to the directions already passed in CWPIL No. 11 of 2020.

The instant petition was filed as a pro bono publico for grant of appropriate directions to ensure that all the Covid patients are provided adequate medical facilities including beds, medicines and ventilators at the Dr. Y.S. Parmar Medical College and that the Covid patients at Nahan Government Hospital are properly and regularly attended to and treated by the doctors and not be left at the mercy of the medical support staff and to further ensure immediate installation and functioning of the ventilators already supplied and available in the Hospital and that every doctor at the hospital may kindly be made personally responsible and liable to ensure that the critical Covid patients requiring oxygen are put on ventilators forthwith in order to prevent further loss of life and to complete the installation and functioning of the existing oxygen manufacturing plant in the Nahan Medical College premises forthwith from its emergency fund without waiting for the resolution of the dispute with the supplier of the said oxygen plant and machinery. An appropriate direction is also requested as the nodal agency to execute and monitor the financial obligations of the State under the Disaster Management Act, 2005 and lastly to designate the Nahan Medical College as Covid 19 dedicated hospital for the district.

The main issue is about lack of oxygen facilities at Dr. Y. S. Parmar Government Medical College, Nahan and non-functioning of 25 ventilators which have been given to the Medical College under the HIM Care Scheme in July, 2020.

Counsel for the petitioners submitted that in view of the surge of Covid cases, the hospital at Nahan is far too small to handle Covid cases as it has only 20 Covid ICU beds and additional 10 beds which are being maintained through ‘D’ type oxygen cylinders to deal with the Covid patients. Whereas, taking into consideration the sudden surge in the Covid positive patients, the facility for atleast 500 persons should be made available by the Government.

The Court laid directions due to drastic surge in the Covid-19 positive cases and as the fatality in the State are highest in the Country. The directions are:

  • Increase the number of authorized laboratories/clinics/hospitals which can carry on the testing for a larger percentage of population
  • Increase the number of testing being done in the bigger towns of the State. The State Government should consider the use of other kits, besides the Rapid Antigen Kit, or the RT PCR tests, for increasing the tests being carried out on daily basis.
  • In order to increase the testing facilities in the hill districts of the State, the State Government should consider sending of ‘mobile vans’ which are fully equipped for carrying out the testing of COVID-19 virus.
  • The State should increase the number of dedicated COVID-19 Hospitals. For, merely having few dedicated COVID-19 hospitals, is too little to tackle the menace, especially when the pandemic is likely to spread and increase throughout the State in the coming months.
  • The State is also directed to consider the feasibility of establishing temporary hospitals with the help of any other Central agency.
  • The State is directed to increase the number of beds available in the hospitals. It shall ensure that the majority of the beds are equipped with Oxygen tank and sufficient numbers of bed are equipped with ventilators. If necessary, the number of ICUs in the hospitals should be increased. This is essential as it is claimed that the second strain directly affects the lungs of the patient. Therefore, the patient needs to be given intensive care, and may require to be put on ventilator immediately.
  • The State Government is directed to ensure that the PPE kits and other protective gears, such as gloves, masks, and sanitizer are provided to all the medical staff, especially to the Doctors, Nurses, Ward Boys to look after the COVID-19 patients. Until and unless our front line worriers are protected from COVID-19 virus, it will be impossible for us to win the battle against the COVID-19 virus.
  • The State Government is directed to publish the names and locations of the testing centres, and the names and locations of Hospitals/Dedicated COVID-19 Health Care Centres in the media bulletin on a daily basis. The media bulletin should clearly indicate the total number of beds available in each hospital/Dedicated COVID- 19 Health Care Centres, and the number of vacant beds available in each hospital. It should also indicate the class of the beds i.e. the number of beds attached with ventilators, number of beds attached with Oxygen cylinders and the number of beds without any Oxygen tank/ Cylinder.
  • We make it absolutely clear that in case the private hospitals refuse to cooperate or reluctant to provide Covid test and covid facilities, then the State Government shall forthwith resort to coercive steps as provided under the Disaster Management Act and also Essential Services Maintenance Act. In addition thereto, wherever private hospitals have been granted incentives like plots on concessional rates etc. etc. The State Government shall be free to withdraw the incentive/ recover the amounts etc. Lastly, the State may proceed to take any other coercive or punitive step as may be warranted and otherwise permissible under the law.
  • The State should also consider the purchasing of additional CT Scan Machines in the State as it is learnt that this machine is essential to detect the presence of the second strain of Covid-19 virus.

The Court further directed to furnish the following informations:

i) Available bed capacity exclusively for Covid-19 facilities in the State both in Government and private hospitals alongwith the details of the availability of oxygen (high flow or otherwise).

ii) State shall give the details of the steps taken and proposed to augment the availability of oxygen meeting both the current and projected requirements.

iii) Place on record the plan prepared by the State Government under the Disaster Management Act to tackle the Covid-19 cases.

iv) Steps taken to ensure the availability of essential drugs including Remdesivir, Favipiravir and Tocilizumab amongst other prescribed drugs and the modalities which have been set up for controlling the essential drugs for preventing hoarding and ensuring the proper communication of the requirement at the level of each Districts by the District Health Authorities or the Collectors of the Health Department of the State.

v) The details of the steps taken by the Government to comply with the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in suo motu Writ Petition (Civil) No. 3 of 2021 in Re: Distribution of Essential Supplies and Services during pandemic, dated 30.04.2021.

vi) Furnish the details of the staff alongwith their designation who have been deputed in the Covid hospitals, both Government and Private.

vii) Respondent No.4 shall furnish the details with regard to distribution of Remdesivir, Favipiravir and Tocilizumab from the Central Government to the State Government up-to-date and why the State of Himachal Pradesh has been discriminated while making allocations of Tocilizumab vide letter dated 27.04.2021 and why allocation of only 3000 Remdesivir vials was made to the State of Himachal Pradesh in comparison to the States with lesser population and with far lesser Covid- infections.

viii) The State shall provide details along with data with regard to distribution of the oxygen and further the details proposed to augment the supply of oxygen.

ix) The State shall furnish the data and also give the data-wise demand and supply of oxygen for the last two weeks as well as future projected demand and the measures taken for meeting such demand.

x) The State shall ensure the uploading of real time data about the availability of beds in each hospital of the State for Covid-19 patients on its Web Portals and also on the Web Portals of all the Hospitals and also physically display the data outside each hospital on daily basis .

xi) As regards the availability of beds in hospital, the following parameters of information must be placed in the public domain by the State Government for all Covid designated hospitals in the State, both public and private through dedicated website and physically outside the hospital.

(a) Name and address of hospital;

(b) Total number of designated Covid-19 beds;

(c) Total number of available designated Covid-19 beds;

(d) Number of beds available in ICUs with ventilators.

(e) Number of beds in ICUs without ventilators;

(f) Number of general hospital beds available with oxygen;

(g) Number of general beds available without oxygen facility.

(h) Date and time when this information was last updated;

(I) Name and mobile number of the Nodal Officers for admission to the hospital;

(j) Link to GPS location of the hospital (only for website).

Such information must be updated once every eight hours and it must be ensured that the site is not password protected and does not require any login credentials to view this information.

(xii) The State shall also furnish the steps taken regarding the availability of oxygen for those all the Covid-19 patients, who though may in home isolation but require oxygen.

xiii) Experts speculate a third wave and, therefore, the State shall disclose its road-map in case third wave strikes.

(xiv) The State has not carried out any Vaccination Programme for those aged between 18 to 44 on the pretext of non-availability of vaccine. Therefore, the State Government is directed to disclose clearly as to from which date, it shall commence the vaccination for the age group as aforesaid.

(xv) The State shall furnish its stand regarding the importance (if any) of the ventilators in treatment of Covid and how it proposes to put to use the ventilators that are lying idle with the State in various hospitals.

(xvi) The State is directed to furnish the complete details regarding the availability of essential medicines required for the treatment of Covid-19 patients, more particularly, the availability of Remdesivir, Favipiravir and Tocilizumab and in case of short-fall, the steps taken in this regard.

(xvii) In the meanwhile, respondent No.4 is directed to ensure the adequate availability of the essential drugs, more particularly, the life saving drugs to the State of Himachal Pradesh and enumerate in detail the steps taken in this regard on or before the next date of hearing.

[Ashutosh Gupta v. State of HP, 2021 SCC OnLine HP 4555, decided on 06-05-2021]

Arunima Bose, Editorial Assistant has put this report together 

Counsel for petitioners: Mr. B.N. Misra and Ms. Vandana Misra.

Counsel for the State: Mr. Ashok Sharma and Mr. Ajay Vaidya

Counsel for respondent 4: Mr. Balram Sharma

Case BriefsCOVID 19Supreme Court

Supreme Court: The 3-judge bench of Dr. DY Chandrachud, L. Nageswara Rao and S. Ravindra Bhat, JJ has clarified that the purpose for taking the suo motu cognisance the “grim” situation of the country hit by the second wave of COVID-19 pandemic and non-availability of COVID-19 essentials was not to supplant or to substitute the judicial process which is being conducted in several High Courts across the country under Article 226 of the Constitution.

“The High Courts are well suited to make an assessment of the ground realities which prevail in each State and to find flexible solutions to deal with practical concerns of and the serious hardships faced by the citizens. Hence, there is no reason or justification to interdict the exercise of the jurisdiction of the High Courts in responding to the human problems faced by the citizens in the States and Union Territories and to find solutions with the cooperation of the authorities.”

However, in a time of national crisis, such as the one which is confronting the nation today as a consequence of the pandemic, the Supreme Court cannot stand silent as a mute spectator. This court has a constitutional duty to protect the fundamental rights traceable to Part III of the Constitution.

“The role of this Court in the present situation is complementary to the role and functions being performed by the High Courts. Neither is intended to substitute the other. Indeed, there may be certain national issues or issues of a systemic nature which have their origin beyond boundaries of a particular State. These issues which travel beyond state boundaries will require a comprehensive national approach if we are to alleviate the immense suffering caused by the pandemic. It is with the consciousness of this duty that this Court has assumed jurisdiction under Article 32 of the Constitution.”

The Court, hence, clarified that the High Courts shall not be restrained by the pendency of these proceedings in passing appropriate orders to deal with the emerging situation in each State or Union Territory concerned, as and when necessary to do so.

The Court has also asked the Central Government to apprise it on

(i) Supply of oxygen –

(a) The projected demand for oxygen in the country at the present point of time and in the foreseeable future;

(b) The steps taken and proposed to augment the availability of oxygen, meeting both the current and projected requirements;

(c) The monitoring mechanism for ensuring the supply of oxygen, particularly to critically affected States and Union Territories as well as the other areas;

(d) The basis on which allocation of oxygen is being made from the central pool; and

(e) The methodology adopted for ensuring that the requirements of the States are communicated to the Central Government on a daily basis so as to ensure that the availability of oxygen is commensurate with the need of each State or, as the case may be, Union Territory.

(ii) Enhancement of critical medical infrastructure, including the availability of beds, Covid treatment centres with duly equipped medical personnel on the basis of the projected requirement of healthcare professionals and anticipated requirements. The Union government will consider framing a policy specifying the standards and norms to be observed for admitting patients to hospitals and covid centres and the modalities for admission;

(iii) The steps taken to ensure due availability of essential drugs, including Remdesivir and Favipiravir among other prescribed drugs and the modalities which have been set up for controlling prices of essential drugs, for preventing hoarding and for ensuring proper communication of the requirements at the level of each District by the District health authorities or Collectors to the Health Departments of the States and thereafter by the states to the Union Ministry of Health and Family Welfare so that the projected requirements are duly met and effectively monitored on a daily basis.

(iv) Vaccination

(a) Presently two vaccinations have been made available in the country, namely, Covishield and Covaxin; (

  1. b) As of date, the vaccination programme has extended to all citizens of the age of 45 years and above;

(c) From 1 May 2021, the vaccination programme is to be opened up also to persons between the age groups of 18 to 45, in addition to the existing age group categories.

The Union of India shall clarify

(i) the projected requirement of vaccines as a result of the enhancement of coverage;

(ii) the modalities proposed for ensuring that the deficit in the availability of vaccines is met;

(iii) steps proposed for enhancement of vaccine availability by sourcing stocks from within and outside the country;

(iv) modalities for administering the vaccines to meet the requirements of those in the older age group (forty five and above) who have already received the first dose;

(v) modalities fixed for administering the vaccine to meet the additional demand of the 18-45 population;

(vi) how the supplies of vaccines will be allocated between various states if each state is to negotiate with vaccine producers; and

(vii) steps taken and proposed for ensuring the procurement of other vaccines apart from Covishield and Covaxin and the time frame for implementation; and

(d) The basis and rationale which has been adopted by the Union government in regard to the pricing of vaccines. The government shall explain the rationale for differential pricing in regard to vaccines sourced by the Union government on one hand and the states on the other hand when both sources lead to the distribution of vaccines to citizens.

Panel of Medical Experts

A panel of medical experts to be nominated by the Central government to disseminate authentic information on all aspects including in regard to the steps which have to be taken for combating the pandemic. The Union of India may consider formulating modalities for ensuring due communication of advisories on a daily basis by the panel of nominated experts. This model may be replicated at the level of each State. This will ensure the dissemination of authentic information.

Amicus curiae

Senior Advocates Jaideep Gupta and Meenakshi Arora have been appointed as amicus curiae after Senior Advocate Harish Salve requested to be relieved of the nomination by the Court.


For UOI: SGI Tushar Mehta

For States: Senior Advocates Vikas Singh, Dr A M Singhvi, Niranjan Reddy, Ranjit Kumar, Rahul Mehra, Standing Counsels Rahul Chitnis and Sachin Patil

Bar Association of India: Senior Advocate Arvind P Datar and

Gujarat High Court Bar Association: Senior Advocate Yatin Oza


The Ministry of Home Affairs through Order No. 40-6/2020-DM-I(A), exercised under Section 10(2)(l) and Section 65 of the Disaster Management Act, 2005 has directed governments and authorities of states and union territories to ensure the following:

  1. Use of liquid oxygen is not allowed for any non medical purpose.
  2. All manufacturing units may maximise the production of liquid oxygen and provide it to the government with immediate effect and till further orders.
  3. All stocks of oxygen should be made available to the government for medical purposes only.
  4.  No exception is allowed to any industry with regard to use of liquid oxygen.

Earlier, National Executive Committee under the Disaster Management Act, 2005 by Order No. 40-3/2020-DM-I-(A) dated 22nd April, 2021 had taken various measures to ensure uninterrupted supply of oxygen throughout the country. These measures included restricting industrial usage of oxygen to ensure availability of oxygen to covid patients.

A copy of the order is given below:

Case BriefsSupreme Court

Supreme Court: The 3-judge bench of SA Bobde, CJ and L. Nageswara Rao and S. Ravindra Bhat, JJ has taken suo motu cognisance of the “grim” situation of the country hit by the second wave of COVID-19 pandemic and has asked the Central Government to report on,

  1. The existence or otherwise and requirement of setting up of a coordinating body that would consider allocation of COVID resources in a consultative manner (with the involvement of concerned States and Union 3 Territories).
  2. Considering declaration of essential medicines and medical equipment including the Drugs, oxygen and vaccination as essential commodities in relation to COVID.
  3. In respect of coordination of logistical support for inter-State and Intra-State transportation and distribution of the above resources.

Due to the sudden surge in the number of covid patients and mortality, the nation is witnessing a shortage of essential COVID resources such as Oxygen and drugs like Remdesivir.

While, drugs, oxygen and vaccination availability and distribution are being carried out by Governments including the Central government according to protocols established by the health authorities, the Court noticed that a certain amount of panic has been generated and people have invoked the jurisdiction of several High Courts in the country seeking various reliefs such as Delhi, Bombay, Sikkim, M.P., Calcutta, Allahabad and Gujarat.

“The High Courts have passed certain orders which may have the effect of accelerating and prioritising the services to a certain set of people and slowing down the availability of these resources to certain other groups whether the groups are local, regional or otherwise.”

The Court was hence, of the prima facie view that the distribution of these essential services and supplies must be done in an even handed manner according to the advice of the health authorities which undoubtedly take into account relevant factors like severity, susceptibility, the number of people affected and the local availability of resources.

It, hence, asked the Central Government to place before it a national plan for dealing with the above services and supplies during Pandemic.

The Court, hence, issued notice to the Union Government, the State Governments/Union Territories and the parties, who appeared to have approached the High Courts to show cause why uniform orders be not passed in relation to

  1. a) Supply of oxygen;
  2. b) Supply of essential drugs;
  3. c) Method and manner of vaccination; and
  4. d) Declaration of lockdown.

The Court will hear the matter tomorrow i.e. on 23.04.2021.

Senior Advocate Harish Salve, assisted by advocate Anuradha Dutta, has been appointed as Amicus Curiae to assist the Court in the matter.


Experts CornerShantanu Mukherjee


The bargain implicit in a patent – the Faustian pact, as Bently and Sherman put it – is classic: a limited monopoly granted by the State in exchange for public disclosure of an invention. Over the years, perhaps nowhere has this pact fuelled as much academic and policy debate as in the pharmaceutical industry. The basis for the debate is understandable: medicines can save lives, and therefore monopolies that potentially restrict access to medicines are a matter of public concern, but on the other hand, for the private sector, drug development and manufacture is a business, and an expensive business at that.


When the Covid-19 pandemic first hit, it was clear that global commitment to research collaborations and technology licensing would be crucial to scale up research, development, manufacturing and supply of vaccines and therapies. Even after a vaccine or vaccines had been developed, no pharmaceutical company would in itself have the manufacturing capacity to meet global demand for vaccines. One would need to manufacture around 5 billion doses to vaccinate the world, for a single-dose vaccine, and 10 billion for a two-dose vaccine.[1] To contextualise the sheer enormity of this challenge, consider that all the vaccine companies in the world together produce less than 6 billion doses a year (including flu shots, routine childhood immunisations, etc.). This means that in order to meet global demand for Covid-19 vaccines without cutting back on any others, global vaccine manufacturing capacity would need to double at the very least, and more likely almost triple.[2] This would require cross-border licensing, technology transfer and contract manufacturing deals to be struck by vaccine developers at a scale and pace hitherto unheard of.


Furthermore, hundreds of patents associated with the treatment of viral infections such as Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS), Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS), influenza and Ebola had the potential to be repurposed for treating Covid (as remdesivir, favipiravir and lopinavir, among others, eventually were)[3]. Could this be achieved if patent-holders clung to monopoly-based rent-seeking ideologies? Could innovators be trusted to grant licences fairly, quickly and on reasonable terms? Would vaccine nationalism and corporate self-interest impede the global effort to combat Covid, and limit access to vaccines and therapies? These were the questions being asked by concerned citizens and organisations early in 2020[4], much as they had in the context of other public health crises[5].


Now, less than a year later, several vaccines have been approved for public use, supply deals worth billions of dollars have been struck and governments around the world have begun massive vaccination drives for their citizens. Were the naysayers wrong? Has the world managed to rise above petty national and corporate interests and come together, as the Beatles had hoped?


As is often the case when ideals collide with realpolitik, the situation is rather more intricate than that.

Through these series of articles, we aim to explore the legal and commercial issues at the heart of the biggest global vaccination effort the world has ever seen.

Part 1: Ideals v. Deals


  1. “You Got The Cash, We Got The Doll”

In early 2020, as Covid-19 raged across the world and companies raced to develop therapies and vaccines, supported by billions of dollars in government aid, concerns grew regarding access.


In March 2020, it was reported that the Trump administration was trying to secure a vaccine being developed by CureVac, a privately held German biotechnology group, exclusively for the United States (US), by persuading the group to move its development efforts to the US, in exchange for a large financial donation.[6] CureVac’s investors denied the story and German officials conveyed their disapproval of any such exclusive access deal in no uncertain terms. A few months later, the German government bought a 23% stake in CureVac, effectively ensuring it can keep an eye on – and likely a veto over – similar overtures.[7]


On 13 May 2020, Sanofi’s CEO, Paul Hudson, said in an interview that the US would likely get Sanofi’s Covid-19 vaccine (if approved) before the rest of the world, because the US was first to fund Sanofi’s vaccine research and expected that “if we’ve helped you manufacture the doses at risk, we get the doses first”.[8]


This, understandably, did not go down well in Europe. The French Prime Minister delicately reminded Sanofi that it was a “deeply French company” and emphasised that “equal access to a vaccine for all is non-negotiable”.[9]


Hours after Hudson’s interview appeared, Sanofi clarified that while vaccines from US production sites would be mainly reserved for Americans, production capacity elsewhere would supply Europe and the rest of the globe.[10]


This echoes a more recent controversy, arising out of an interview given by AstraZeneca’s CEO[11], in which, while seeking to explain the company’s recent inability to meet its vaccine supply commitments (which he characterised as being on a “best efforts” basis), he gave the impression that vaccine production from AstraZeneca’s British plants were being reserved for the United Kingdom (UK), while the European Union (EU) was being supplied by a plant in Belgium (which was facing production issues, hence the supply disruption). We will examine the EU/AstraZeneca Advance Purchase Agreement (recently released in redacted form), and other commercial deals that define the current vaccine access landscape, in greater detail in future instalments of this series (including “Part 2: Follow the Money”).


The CureVac and Sanofi incidents underscored a larger trend. As the US, UK and other wealthy nations rushed to enter into Advance Purchase Agreements with vaccine manufacturers such as Moderna, Pfizer and AstraZeneca for the purchase of under-development vaccines, an overwhelming majority of the world’s (already limited) vaccine manufacturing capacity was being blocked for them, effectively denying access to poorer countries that could not afford to enter into these at-risk vaccine pre-purchase deals.


The effort to develop and distribute a vaccine was beginning to look less like a collaborative global endeavour and more like an undignified Black Friday stampede, or a brawl for the last action figure in a store the night before Christmas.

2. “Cohagen, Give These People Air!”

Pressure mounted from the open access lobby for a more equitable approach. On 14th May 2020, 140 political leaders and economists released a letter[12], drafted by United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS)  and Oxfam, calling for a World Health Organisation (WHO) administered global agreement that (i) ensured mandatory global sharing of all Covid-19 related knowledge with a pool of licences freely available to all countries; (ii) established a global manufacturing and distribution plan “fully funded by rich nations”; and (iii) guaranteed that Covid-19 vaccines, diagnostics, tests and treatments were provided “free of charge to everyone, everywhere”. On the same day, members of European Parliament expressed support for compulsory licensing as a means of ensuring Europeans access to approved Covid-19 vaccines.[13]


Meanwhile several health advocacy groups, including Doctors Without Borders, Third World Network and India’s Cancer Patients Aid Association, asked the Indian government to invalidate three Gilead patents protecting Remdesivir (at that time, the only drug approved in the US for emergency treatment of Covid-19).[14] This was despite the fact that Gilead had issued voluntary licences to manufacturers in India and Pakistan allowing them to make and sell Remdesivir in 127 countries.[15]


At the same time, other global initiatives such as the Medicines Patent Pool (MPP)[16], the World Health Organisation (WHO) Covid-19 Technology Access Pool (C-TAP)[17] and the Open Covid Pledge[18] were trying to put in place voluntary pooling mechanisms to share the intellectual property (IP) and technology necessary to fight Covid, but these failed to gather critical mass and take off. Industry leaders appeared generally dismissive[19] of these initiatives, and they failed to attract any pledges or licences from drug companies developing Covid therapies or vaccines. Although 18 generic drug manufacturers did offer their capacity to develop and supply Covid-19 treatments to those in need via the MPP, no patent licences for such treatments have been placed in the MPP pool to date.


It was reported[20] that apart from lacking industry support, these initiatives had been edged out by the WHO’s more popular program, the Access to Covid-19 Tools (ACT) Accelerator.[21] The ACT Accelerator was preferred, the article theorised, because it respected and preserved the intellectual property status quo, while the C-TAP sought to challenge it.[22]


However, with even the European Commission now admitting the unanticipated challenges in scaling up production of vaccines and mulling voluntary licensing mechanisms[23], the dynamics of the conversation around voluntary sharing approaches may shift.


3. “I’ll Live To See You Eat That Contract”

On 2 October 2020, India and South Africa tabled a joint proposal before the World Trade Organisation (WTO) requesting that a temporary waiver be granted to WTO members permitting them to choose not to implement, apply or enforce certain obligations related to Covid-19 products and technologies under Sections 1 (copyrights and related rights), 4 (industrial design), 5 (patents) and 7 (protection of undisclosed information) of Part II of the Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) agreement, for the duration of the Covid crisis.[24] The proposal argues that it offers a way to ramp up global production of vaccines and calls on members to ensure that IP rights do not impede timely access to affordable vaccines and medicines.[25]


The proposal was opposed by several other countries on the basis of the argument that existing TRIPS allowances for compulsory licensing and parallel importing were sufficient to address the relevant concerns.


Proponents of the waiver proposal countered that such TRIPS allowances are illusory, as compulsory licences, when granted in the past by countries such as India, Malaysia and Colombia, have faced backlash from other member States and pharmaceutical companies, including threats of trade sanctions.[26] Interestingly, the draft of the waiver proposal requires that WTO members do not challenge any measures taken in conformity with the waiver, including through the WTO’s Dispute Settlement Mechanism.


Recent news reports indicate that more than 400 US civil society groups and lawmakers are calling on the US President to support the TRIPS waiver.[27] On 3 February 2021, 14 members of the European Parliament, in a letter to the EU leadership, asked the EU to support the waiver and issue compulsory licences to facilitate the scaling up of Covid-19 vaccine production.[28] The WTO General Council (GC) will receive an update from the TRIPS Council on this matter during the GC meeting on 1-2 March 2021.


Increasing inability by vaccine manufacturers to meet their supply commitments, resulting contractual and diplomatic tensions and allegations of vaccine nationalism will likely cause the conversation to return to the TRIPS waiver proposal periodically, although the proposal itself is unlikely to pass (ultimately). Some believe that the political push for a TRIPS waiver may well lead voluntary pooling initiatives such as C-TAP to finally take off, in that, faced with the prospect of a TRIPS waiver or compulsory licensing, the industry may move to adopt voluntary approaches. Further, while the TRIPS waiver proposal can, in theory, expedite response to the pandemic by suspending intellectual property protection to trade secrets, it may not eventually be able to actually force technology transfer[29]. If potential vaccine manufacturers cannot get access to the complex technological know-how necessary to manufacture the vaccines or therapies (where such know-how has not been disclosed in the patent filings and is protected as confidential knowhow or trade secrets), the TRIPS waiver would do little good[30]. Under those circumstances, a voluntary mechanism for facilitating technology transfer such as the C-TAP could come into its own.


Conclusion to Part 1

The biopharma industry’s lukewarm response to sweeping initiatives like the Open Covid Pledge, the WHO/MPP patent pools and the TRIPS waiver proposal, when contrasted with the range of voluntary measures (such as voluntary licensing and IP waivers) taken by the industry over the past year suggest that patent-holders would much rather adopt a case-by-case approach to waiving or licensing their IP than sign up to a blanket, global commitment in respect of such IP. While drug companies can probably live without making large profits[31] from the ongoing vaccine development frenzy (given the substantial government funding they’ve received towards development and commercialisation), they can’t simply give away the IP they develop without retaining any say in the manner of its exploitation, either. From the perspective of a pharma CEO who is, ultimately, a salaried professional answerable to shareholders that demand a return on their investment, this would likely amount to throwing the baby out with the bathwater.


The second part of this series (“Part 2: Follow the money”) will examine how compulsory licensing failed to move beyond the statute books other than in Israel but did, arguably, trigger a few voluntary IP non-enforcement pledges by vaccine manufacturers, and how access to vaccines today is a function not of the sweeping global “open access” schemes argued for by so many, but on a patchwork of bilateral advance purchase agreements between governments and vaccine developers, and public-private initiatives such as COVAX[32].


† Shantanu is the founder of Ronin Legal, a legal boutique with a focus on pharma, biologics and healthcare. He can be reached at and on Twitter [@LegalRonin]. 




[4]<>. See also <>. See also the Médecins Sans Frontières Technical Briefing Document “Voluntary Licenses and Access to Medicines” available HERE

[5]See, among others, Hoen, Ellen, Private Patents and Public Health, Changing Intellectual Property Rules for Access to Medicines, available HERE






[11]In an exclusive interview to an Italian newspaper, available Here.

[12] Full text available HERE.

[13] Global Calls for Compulsory Covid-19 Patent Licensing Build, available HERE .

[14]See HERE. See also HERE.

[15] <>. Generic versions of Remdesivir are now available in India. See  HERE.

[16]On 31-3-2020, the Medicines Patent Pool (MPP) – which has hitherto focused on increasing access to HIV, tuberculosis and hepatitis C drugs in developing nations through patent pooling arrangements – decided to temporarily expand its mandate to include any Covid-related health technology where licensing could improve access.

[17] C-TAP was launched in May 2020, to act as a platform to voluntarily share Covid-related knowledge, intellectual property and data and accelerate the scale up of manufacturing. See  HERE.

[18] The Open Covid Pledge (OCP) website <> lists patent-holders who are making their intellectual property available free of charge for use in alleviating the Covid-19 pandemic. The OCP attracted significant participation from technology giants (its founding partners included Facebook, Amazon and Microsoft) but none from companies developing Covid vaccines or therapies.

[19]Pharma Leaders Shoot down WHO Voluntary Pool for Patent Rights on Covid-19 Products, available HERE .

[20]Constraints Facing the Covid-19 Technology Access Pool (C-TAP) available HERE.

[21] The Accelerator is a global collaboration to accelerate the development, production, and equitable access to Covid-19 tests, treatments, and vaccines. It was set up by the WHO, European Commission, France and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation in April 2020.


[23]“The Commission will foster the creation, if need be, of a voluntary dedicated licensing mechanism, which would allow technology owners to retain a continued control over their rights whilst guaranteeing that technology, knowhow and data are effectively shared with a wider group of manufacturers.” Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the European Council and the Council dated 17-2-2021, available HERE .

[24] Text of proposal available HERE

[25]See generally, Médecins Sans Frontières Briefing Document dated 8-10-2020 available HERE.






[31] Where do Covid-19 Vaccine Players Stand on Pricing? So Far, It’s No Profit, Slight Profit or Undecided available HERE.

[32] COVAX, the vaccines pillar of the Access to Covid-19 Tools (ACT) Accelerator, is co-led by Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI), Gavi, The Vaccine Alliance and WHO. It is a global initiative that works with Governments, vaccine manufacturers, UNICEF, the World Bank, and others to ensure rapid and equitable access to Covid-19 vaccines for all countries.