June 20, 2023

Rejoinder: Rachana Gangu vs Union of India WP(C) 1220 of 2021

Rejoinder was filed in reply to Affidavit by UoI dated 23.11.22
March 18, 2023

Vaccine Injury 100 Cr Compensation Case

100 Cr Vaccine Injury Compensation case filed in Mulund District Court, Mumbai
September 16, 2022

PIL on Vaccines for Pregnant Woment, Dr. Riddhi Arora & Ors. vs UoI & Ors.

WP (C) 1383 of 2021
August 29, 2022

Rachna Gangu vs UoI, WP(Civil) 1220 of 2021 – Case for vaccine compensation in SC

After hearing the petitioners, Hon’ble Justice Dinesh Maheshwari and Hon’ble Justice Bela M. Trivedi have issued a notice to UoI.
June 19, 2022

Criminal Writ Petition filed in Bombay High Court against Chief Secretary Maharastra Shri Manukumar Srivastava

Criminal Writ Petition No. 9300 of 2022
May 12, 2022

PIL for Compensation in Kerala HC

Petition to claim compensation for death of Nova Sabu, 19 years, after taking Covid Vaccine.
May 11, 2022

Indian Supreme Court Judgement Against Vaccine Mandates

Incase the above section is not visible, download the judgement from this link : https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Y63ireSr8-J4ATLxgqLxP4hqJyi_5wUi/view?usp=sharingImportant sections of the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in Jacob Puliyel’s Case 2022 SCC OnLine SC 533 [dated 2nd may 2022]. A landmark judgement upholding our fundamental rights under article 21 and 14 and equating right to health to right to life under article 21. 1st time in the world our Supreme Court gave a decision based on Scientific validity smashing the false narratives of Bill Gates’ vaccine mafia. No submission nor any data has been put forth to justify restrictions only on unvaccinated individuals when emerging scientific evidence appears to indicate that the risk of transmission of the virus from unvaccinated individuals is almost on par with that from vaccinated persons. To put it differently, neither the Union of India nor the State Governments have produced any material before this Court to justify the discriminatory treatment of unvaccinated individuals in public places by imposition of vaccine mandates. …. in light of the data presented by the Petitioner, which has not been controverted by the Union of India as well as the State Governments, we are of the opinion that the restrictions on unvaccinated individuals imposed through vaccine mandates cannot be considered to be proportionate, especially since both vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals presently appear to be susceptible to transmission of the virus at similar levels.” Point 89 – Conclusions – (v) – ….In light of this, restrictions on unvaccinated individuals imposed through various vaccine mandates by State Governments / Union Territories cannot be said to be proportionate. ….. we suggest that all authorities in this country, including private organisations and educational institutions, review the relevant orders and instructions imposing restrictions on unvaccinated individuals in terms of access to public places, services and resources, if not already recalled. (vii) Recognising the imperative need for collection of requisite data of adverse events and wider participation in terms of reporting, the Union of India is directed to facilitate reporting of suspected adverse events by individuals and private doctors on an accessible virtual platform. These reports shall be made publicly accessible, without compromising on protecting the confidentiality of the persons reporting, with all necessary steps to create awareness of the existence of such a platform and of the information required to navigate the platform to be undertaken by the Union of India at the earliest.
May 11, 2022

Bombay HC order that quashed Maharashtra Govts Illegal Vaccine Mandate

Incase you can’t view the above, download the order here : https://drive.google.com/file/d/1lPXepthW6-lvRc9kj01oM__BMZRZH5tn/view?usp=sharing Important part of the order : Mr. Ojha, learned advocate appearing for the petitionerin PIL Petition Stamp No. 6218 of 2022 has placed before usan order dated March 31, 2022 issued by the PrincipalSecretary, Department of Revenue and Forest, DisasterManagement, Relief and Rehabilitation, Government ofMaharashtra, Mantralaya, Mumbai. Such order withdraws allthe restrictions imposed under the Disaster Management Act,2005 (hereafter “2005 Act”, for short) with effect frommidnight of April 1, 2022. All District Disaster ManagementAuthorities have been advised thereby to withdraw all the restrictions imposed for the purposes of containment of Covid-19 pandemic under the 2005 Act. Issuance of such order dated March 31, 2022 takes careof one part of the grievances of the petitioner; we, therefore,close the issue raised with regard to availing of publictransport services by vaccinated people only.
May 11, 2022

Bombay High Court Order Declaring Maharashtra Govt Covid Orders Illegal

Incase you cannot access the above pdf, download the order here : https://drive.google.com/file/d/1JLWJaoCRVwbgvkL8WYjq-3tmQl7ed52_/view?usp=drivesdkImportant section of the order where the Chief Justice mentions that all restrictions which the State of Maharashtra imposed in the wake of the Covid-19 pandemic were illegal : In our order dated 22nd February 2022, we had in nouncertain terms observed that the previous orders of theState Government imposing restrictions on user of public transport had no sanction of law and that in keeping with theimproving situation, it would be eminently desirable if theCommittee takes a decision which would effectively put aquietus to the issues raised in the PIL petitions. The hope andtrust reposed by us in the Committee that it would take adecision, which is reasonable and not in derogation of theFundamental Rights of the citizens guaranteed by Article19(1)(d), stand belied. We were utterly mistaken. TheCommittee, instead of respecting the observations that weremade in the order dated 22nd February 2022, has once againinsisted on only those who are vaccinated to avail publictransport despite the fact that presently in Mumbai and itsadjoining areas almost every activity is being performed as inthe pre-pandemic days and normalcy has been restored in fairmeasure. In hindsight, we feel that having regard to the grossviolations of the Disaster Management Act, 2005 (hereafter“the Act”, for short) and the rules framed thereunder inimposing restrictions since 10th August 2021, it would havebeen appropriate if we had struck down the further orderspassed in the name of the State Government post August,2021 by the Chief Secretary, Government of Maharashtra inexercise of our suo motu powers instead of, in accordancewith judicial discipline, permitting the Committee to take afresh decision. This decision of the Committee, in thecircumstances, is unexpected to say the least.
April 18, 2022

KIN OF DOCTOR WHO DIED AFTER HER FIRST DOSE OF COVISHIELD FILES WRIT PETITION BEFORE BOMBAY HIGH COURT, CLAIMS RS.10,000 CRORES COMPENSATION (USD 1.34 BILLION)

Dilip Lunawat vs Serum Institute & Ors.
March 22, 2022

Final Rejoinders in Jacob Puliyel vs UoI & Ors

Series of Final Rejoinders filed in W.P. (Civil) 607 of 2021
March 10, 2022

PIL (Civil) Stamp No. 6218 of 2022 in Bombay High Court

Quash vaccine mandates, Return fine unlawfully collected for masks and compensate everyone for losses due to lockdown. Petitioner demands order from High Court in PIL. Petitioner also sought prosecution of guilty officials, Iqbal Chahal, Suresh kakani, Chief Minister Uddhav Thackeray and others for misappropriation of public funds. The petition is filled by Awaken India Movement’s (AIM) Feroze Mithiborwalla. He also sought a compensation of Rs. 5 crores for violation of his fundamental rights. High Court Division Bench earlier on 2nd March, 2022 held that the vaccine mandates passed by the State authorities are illegal and violative of the Fundamental Rights of the citizen as guaranteed under Article 19(1)d of the Constitution of India. Section 2 of Epidemic Act, 1897 and Section 12 & 13 of Disaster Management Act, 2005 makes it mandatory for the State Government to give compensation to every citizen, businessman who has suffered due to lockdown, night curfew or any restriction put by the Government. Law also mandates the Government to give relief in Installments/EMIS of bank loan if Government applies Disaster Management Act. But State Government failed to provide the same and therefore Petitioner filed the PIL. As per Disaster Management Act, 2005 or Epidemic Act 1897 there is no provision for recovery of fine for not wearing a Mask or for not following any directions or guidelines. But State Government illegally collected fine from the citizen. From Mumbai the collection was more than 120 Crores. Half of collection was given to private marshals. As per law it is an act of extortion and the fine has to be returned and the concerned officials should face prosecution under extortion charges i.e. Section 384, 385, 409, 120(B), 34 etc. of I.P.C. The prayers in the petition are self explainatory. The prayers are as under;“(a) To hold that the impugned order dated 1st March, 2022 and any other order/s, circulars, SoP’s & notifications, which promote discrimination between vaccinated and unvaccinated are illegal and violative of fundamental rights of the citizens mandated under Article 14, 19 & 21 of the Constitution of India and quash the same; (b) To hold that as per the law laid down by Hon’ble Suprem Court in the case of Common Cause Vs. UOI (2018) 5 SCC 1 is that no one can be ccompelled to get any treatment or medicine and the State Government’s own policy decision is that the vaccination is not compulsory and no one can be compelled to take vaccine against their wishes and therefore vaccination cannot be made mandatory by adopting indirect methods of putting conditions of vaccination certificate for availing certain facilities, benefits and services as had been ruled in the case of Noida Entrepreneurs Association Vs. Noida (2011) 6 SCC 508. (c) To hold that, as per data available on record, reply given by ICMR and as per Central & State Government’s policy decision, it is clear that, there is no proof that vaccinated people are protected and cannot spread infection and there is no difference between vaccinated and unvaccinated people in this regard and therefore the restriction put on unvaccinated people is not based on any legally admissible evidence or intelligent differentia and therefore such orders are arbitrary and violative of Article 14, 19 & 21 of the Constitution of India; (d) To hold that the act of Respondent No.3 Shri. Aseem Gupta, Respondent No. _ Shri. Udhav Thackrey, Chief Minister, Respondent No. _ and authorities in not considering the status of people with previous infection or having developed antibidies who are immune and safe, despite the directions from WHO, various scientists such as experts from AIIMS and various peer reviewed scholarly research paper, and also the other evidence of sterling nature proves that the respondents are causing loss of thousands of crores to the public exchequer and giving wrongful profit of thousands of crores to the vaccine companies and therefore they are liable to be prosecuted under section 409,52, 120(B), 34 etc. of Indian Penal Code and CBI needs to be directed to investigate the case by treating this petition as an FIR as done in the case of Noida Entrepreneurs Association Vs. Noida (2011) 6 SCC 508.(e) Grant interim ad-interim relief of staying the unlawful directions in the impugned order dated 01.03.2022 till the final decision in the petition.(f) Direct the Respondent State to give the list of task force members, their qualifications and reason for not taking the advice of domain experts i.e. epidemiologist and vaccine experts like Respondent No.Dr. Sanjeev Rai AIIMS, New Delhi, Dr. Arvind Khushwaha, AllMS Nagpur and others. (g) To hold that in view of order 2nd March, 2022 (Exhibit – “”) passed by this Hon’ble Court it is clear that the fundamental constitutional rights of the petitioner are violated by the state by acting on unlawful mandates passed by Respondent No. _ Shri. Sitaram Kunte and the petitioner has suffered for many months and grant an interim compensation of Rs. 5 Crores to be immediately paid by the state and later be recovered from the guilty officials including Respondent No. Sitaram Kunte who by their act of commission and omission are responsible for such violation, as has been laid down in the case of Veena Sippy Vs. Mr. Narayan Dumbre & Ors. 2012 SCC OnLine Bom 339.(h) Direct the State and Central Government authorities to produce the exact text of the details of instructions including death causing and other side effects given by them to the various doctors which is to be told to the person to whom vaccines are being given for getting informed consent from the beneficiaries as has been given in the covid vaccination guidelines issued by the Central Government and submitted in their affidavit dated 13.01.2022 (Exhibit – ).(i) Direct State and Central Government authorities to follow the law of informed consent in letter and spirit and as per law laid down in the cases of Montgomery [2015] UKSC 11, Master Haridaan Kumar Vs. Union of India 2019 SCC OnLine Del 11929 , Registrar […]
Join Us