Prove that Maharashtra policy to ban unvaccinated people from travelling in local trains is unreasonable: HC to litigants

The Bombay High Court on Monday said those opposing the Maharashtra government's policy to prohibit people not vaccinated against COVID-19 from travelling in local trains in Mumbai will have to prove that such a policy is totally arbitrary and unreasonable. A bench of Chief Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice M S Karnik said only if the HC is led to believe that such a policy is absolutely unreasonable and it "shocks the conscience of the court", will it interfere with the restrictions imposed by the state government on local train travel.

The court also said that vaccination was "a sort of weapon" to fight COVID-19 and those who have not taken the jabs do not have access to this shield.

The bench was hearing a public interest litigation filed by city residents Firoze Mithiborwala and Yohan Tengra, urging the HC to strike down the Maharashtra government's SOPs issued in August last year, which mandated that only those who had taken both the doses of vaccine against COVID-19 could travel in local trains in the metropolis.


The petitioners' counsel, Nilesh Ojha, told the HC that such prohibition was discriminatory to those who are not vaccinated and a violation of their rights to equality, life and freedom of movement.

The state government, however, filed an affidavit in the HC earlier this month, saying the restriction was reasonable and did not affect the citizens' fundamental right to life and liberty.

It said the state was performing its parens patriae duty, or the duty of guardian of the entire state, in imposing such restriction.

On Monday, the HC bench cited the state's affidavit and asked Ojha why must the court interfere with a state policy?

It said vaccination was "a sort of weapon" to fight COVID-19.

"No one says that the vaccinated won't ever contract COVID-19. Even the most protected of people have also contracted COVID-19. However, vaccination will act as a shield against future vaccinations. Those who are not vaccinated do not have access to this shield," the high court said.

The HC further read from the Maharashtra government's affidavit to state that one's chances of getting infected with COVID-19, or one being forced to be hospitalised get minimised after vaccination.

The state submitted that 7.9 crore people had been vaccinated with the first dose in Maharashtra.

"More than 75 per cent have gone for the first dose and they feel that vaccination will work for them even if it doesn't give 100 per cent protection," the HC said.

"In fact, today no medicine can give you 100 per cent protection. If you are diabetic and take medicine, then you are just protecting yourself from something severe happening. The vaccination is a similar step," the court said.

The HC also said while one could argue that the state's SOPs or its policy on COVID-19-related restrictions could be wiser or sounder, the same would not be an adequate ground for the court to interfere with it.

"You (petitioners) will have to show that this policy is unreasonable, so arbitrary that no reasonable person will agree to it. It has to shock the conscience of the court," the HC said.

It will hear the matter further on January 17.