Can an employer insist his employees to take the Covid-19 Vaccination? No says HC,

 

The Single Bench of the Delhi High Court in the case of Isha vs State (NCT of Delhi) & Ors. consisting of Justice Prathiba M. Singh expounded that Covid-19 vaccination cannot be insisted upon by the employer.

Brief Facts:

The Petitioner is employed as a Lecturer- History in the Government Girls Senior Secondary School in Delhi which ran under Respondent No. 2- Director, Directorate of Education, GNCTD. She filed this petition seeking a declaration that she should be allowed to attend the school, conduct teaching, and undertake other responsibilities without being forced to take the COVID-19 vaccine.

Observations of the Court:

The Bench noted that the issue related to non-vaccination had already been considered by the Supreme Court in Jacob Puliyel vs Union of India & Ors. (2022 SCC OnLine 748) and by the Delhi High Court in Narendar Kumar vs. Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi ( WP (C) 4741/2022) wherein the following was opined:

“…bodily integrity is protected Under Article 21 of the Constitution and no individual can be forced to be vaccinated. Further, the personal autonomy of an individual, which is a recognised facet of the protections guaranteed Under Article 21, encompasses the right to refuse to undergo any medical treatment in the sphere of individual health. However, in the interest of protection of communitarian health, the Government is entitled to regulate issues of public health concern by imposing certain limitations on individual rights, which are open to scrutiny by constitutional courts…”

The decision of the Court:

The High Court held that Covid-19 vaccination could not be insisted upon by the employer, in terms of the various orders passed above. Moreover, the Petitioner, in any case, had gotten vaccinated as well. Accordingly, the application was disposed of. 

Case Title: Isha vs State (NCT of Delhi) & Ors.

Coram: Hon’ble Justice Prathiba M. Singh

Case No: W.P.(C) 12985/2021 

Advocate for Petitioner: Adv. Ms. Megha Bahl.

Advocates for Respondents: Advs. Mr. Santosh Kumar Tripathi with Mr. Arun Panwar, Mr. Siddharth Krishna Dwivedi, and Mr. Aditya S. Jadhav.

 Social media is bold. 

Social media is young.

Social media raises questions.

 Social media is not satisfied with an answer.

Social media looks at the big picture.

 Social media is interested in every detail.

social media is curious.

 Social media is free.

Social media is irreplaceable.

But never irrelevant.

Social media is you.

(With input from news agency language)

 If you like this story, share it with a friend!   

We are a non-profit organization. Help us financially to keep our journalism free from government and corporate pressure .