Christian Teacher’s Plea Against Mandatory Covid Shot, Alleged Covishield Trials on Foetuses Dismissed
By-Naresh
The Calcutta High Court recently dismissed a writ petition moved by a teacher against the school’s demand for mandatory Covid-19 vaccination.
The teacher had refused to take shots of Covishield manufactured by AstraZeneca on the ground that as documented in journals, during the clinical trials, the vaccine had been experimented on foetuses (or foeti) which is against Christian beliefs. He had also denied taking any other vaccine shot stating that there were no confirmed reports about their trials, therefore, he could not be forced to undergo vaccination.
Through the writ petition, the teacher sought a declaration that administration of Covid-19 vaccine is not mandatory when it conflicts with a person’s personal religious beliefs. Along with that, he also sought a mandamus commanding the respondent school to forthwith allow him to continue his work as a teacher and release his salary with all arrears.
However, the court held that the arguments put forth by the petitioner for not taking the vaccine shots were random logic. The court noted that the petitioner did not place any confirmed medical data before it for forming an opinion that the Covishield vaccine has been developed through trials which offend the Christian faith.
“It would also not be out of place to point out that a writ court is not vested with the jurisdiction or the expertise to assess a large body of scientific evidence – even if produced – to draw a conclusion on the alleged un-Christian trials for developing a vaccine,” the court said. Court also stressed that the petitioner also failed to place any satisfactory explanation for his refusal of taking shots of any other vaccine that was available in the market. “The argument that the petitioner does not have sufficient data at his disposal with regard to the Covaxin clinical trials is not a satisfactory answer for taking a favourable view of the petitioner’s alleged religious dilemma,” the court held.
Court further observed that both the rights under Articles 21 and 25(1) are subject to reasonable limits according to the procedure established by law. The court stressed that the petitioner’s right to remain un-vaccinated must be balanced with the right of the children and other teachers and staff of the school to be protected against the Covid-19 pandemic. “The risk of exposure of the children and staff of the school to an un-vaccinated teacher cannot be ruled out”, it held.
More importantly, the court observed that although the petitioner had been moved the high court invoking its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, he essentially sought a mandamus to the school to permit him to continue his job and disburse his salary. In this regard, the court held that only the reason that an institute imparts education is not sufficient for bringing all unaided and minority private schools and colleges under the cover of Article 226.
“The purely personal and pragmatic case for monetary relief fixed on lofty (and vexing) religious speculation cannot be sustained and that too against a private un-aided School”, the court stressed. Therefore, agreeing with the argument put forth by the counsel for the school that the petition under Article 226 was not maintainable as the respondent school was a private body, court dismissed it. “The right sought to be enforced is purely of a private contractual character”, the court held.
Leave a Reply