NATIONAL CENTRE FOR PROMOTION OF EMPLOYMENT FOR DISABLED PEOPLE (NCPEDP) v. UNION OF INDIA

WP(C) 903/2021 1 ITEM NO.22 Court 4 (Video Conferencing) SECTION PIL-W S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Writ Petition (Civil) No.903/2021 ABHINAV THAPAR Petitioner(s) VERSUS UNION OF INDIA MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND Respondent(s) FAMILY WELFARE GOVT. OF INDIA Date : 05-01-2022 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE D.Y. CHANDRACHUD HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. BOPANNA For Petitioner(s) Mr. Krishna Ballabh Thakur, AOR For Respondent(s) Mr. Gurmeet Singh Makker, AOR Mr. K.M. Nataraj, ASG Mr. Sharath Nambiar, Adv. Mr. Raghavendra S. Srivatsa, Adv. Mr. Vatsal Joshi, Adv. Mr. Subhranshu Padhi, Adv. Mr. Amrish Kumar, AOR Mr. Mahfooz Ahsan Nazki, AOR Mr. Polanki Gowtham, Adv. Mr. Shaik Mohamad Haneef, Adv. Mr. T. Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy, Adv. Mr. K.V. Girish Chowdary, Adv. Ms. Rajeswari Mukerjee, Adv.

WP(C) 903/2021 2 Mr. Abhimanyu Tewari, AOR Ms. Eliza Bar, Adv. Ms. Diksha Rai, AOR Mr. Ankit Agarwal, Adv. Ms. Ragini Pandey, Adv. Mr. Saket Singh, Adv. Mrs. Niranjana Singh, AOR Mr. Surjendu Sankar Das, AOR Ms. Sakshi Tibrewal, Adv. Mr. Manish Kumar, Adv. Mr. V.K. Shukla, Adv. Mr. SPM Tripathi, Adv. Mr. Sugam Mishra, Adv. Mr. Jayanta Bhattacharyya, Adv. Ms. Saket Gautam, Adv. Ms. Beena, Adv. Ms. Swagoti Batchas, Adv. Mr. Satish Kumar, AOR Mr. Tapesh Kumar Singh, Adv. Ms. Pragya Baghel, Adv. Ms. Pallavi Langar, AOR Mr. Harshad V. Hameed, AOR Mr. Dileep Poolakkot, Adv. Mrs. Ashly Harshad, Adv. Mr. Muhammed Siddick, Adv. Ms. Mrinal Gopal Elker, AOR Ms. Abha Sharma, Adv. Mr. Sachin Patil, AOR Mr. Rahul Chitnis, Adv. Mr. Aaditya A. Pande, Adv. Mr. Geo Joseph, Adv. Ms. Shwetal Shepal, Adv. Mr. Shovan Mishra, AOR Ms. Bipasa Tripathy, Adv.

WP(C) 903/2021 3 Mr. Vivek Kolhi, Adv. Gen. Mr. Sameer Abhyankar, AOR Ms. Yeshi Rinchhen, Adv. Mr. Abhinav Mishra, Adv. Ms. Nishi Sangtani, Adv. Mr. S. Udaya Kumar Sagar, AOR Ms. Sweena Nair, Adv. Mr. P. Mohith Rao, Adv. Ms. Vanshaja Shukla, AOR Mr. Sajal Singhai, Adv. Mr. Chanchal Kumar Ganguli, AOR Ms. G. Indira, AOR Ms. Habilila Nana, Adv. Mr. Shubham Bhalla, AOR Mr. Yajur Bhalla, Adv. Mr. Deepak Samota, Adv. Mr. Sumeir Ahuja, Adv. Mr. Siddharth Srivastava, Adv. Mr. Aravindh S., AOR Ms. C. Rubavathi, Adv. Mr. Krishna Kumar Singh, AOR Mr. Sachin Jain, Applicant-in-person Mr. Pukhrambam Ramesh Kumar, Adv. Ms. Anupama Ngangom, Adv. Mr. Karun Sharma, Adv. Dr. Joseph Aristotle S., Adv. Ms. Preeti Singh, Adv. Ms. Nupur Sharma, Adv. Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Mahara, Adv. Ms. Archana Pathak Dave, Adv. Ms. Deepanwita Priyanka, Adv.

WP(C) 903/2021 4 Mr. Alok Sangwan, Sr. AAG, Mr. Sumit Kumar Sharma, Adv. Mr. Anurag Kulharia, Adv. Mr. Yashdeep Singh, Adv. Dr. Monika Gusain, Adv. Mr. Siddhesh Kotwal, Adv. Ms. Ana Upadhyay, Adv. Ms. Manya Hasija, Adv. Ms. Pragya Barsaiyan, Adv. Mr. Akash Singh, Adv. Mr. Nirnimesh Dube, Adv. Mr. Avijit Mani Tripathi, Adv. Mr. Kynpham V. Kharlyngdoh, Adv. Mr. Daniel Lyngdoh, Adv. Mr. P.S. Negi, Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R 1 Tag with Writ Petition (Civil) No 863 of 2020. (CHETAN KUMAR) (SAROJ KUMARI GAUR) A.R.-cum-P.S. Court Master

WP(C) 903/2021 1 ITEM NO.30 Court 4 (Video Conferencing) SECTION PIL-W S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Writ Petition (Civil) No.903/2021 ABHINAV THAPAR Petitioner(s) VERSUS UNION OF INDIA MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND Respondent(s) FAMILY WELFARE GOVT. OF INDIA Date : 10-12-2021 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE D.Y. CHANDRACHUD HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. BOPANNA For Petitioner(s) Mr. Krishna Ballabh Thakur, AOR For Respondent(s) Mr. K.M. Nataraj, ASG Mr. Gurmeet Singh Makker, Adv. Mr. Sharath Nambiar, Adv. Mr. Raghavendra S. Srivatsa, Adv. Mr. Vatsal Joshi, Adv. Mr. Subhranshu Padhi, Adv. Mr. Abhimanyu Tewari, AOR Ms. Eliza Bar, Adv. Ms. Diksha Rai, AOR Mr. Saket Singh, Adv. Ms. Sarvshree, Adv. Mrs. Niranjana Singh, AOR Mr. Manish Kumar, Adv.

WP(C) 903/2021 2 Mr. V.K. Shukla, Adv. Mr. Sugam Mishra, Adv. Mr. S.P.M. Tripathi, Adv. Mr. Prithvijoy Das, Adv. Mr. Jayanta Bhattacharyya, Adv. Mr. Satish Kumar, AOR Mr. Arunabh Chowdhury, AAG Ms. Pragya Baghel, Adv. Ms. Pallavi Langar, AOR Mr. Kumar Anurag Singh, Adv. Mr. Abhishek Roy, Adv. Ms. Barnali Chowdhury, Adv. Mr. Harshad V. Hameed, AOR Mr. Dileep Poolakkat, Adv. Mrs. Ashly Harshad, Adv. Mr. Muhammed Siddick, Adv. Mr. Shovan Mishra, AOR Mr. Dhiraj Kumar, Adv. Mr. Sanveer Mehlwal, Adv. Mr. Abdul Gaffar, Adv. Ms. Geetanjali Mehlwal, Adv. Mr. Sameer Abhyankar, AOR Mr. C. Rubavathi, Adv. Mr. S. Udaya Kumar Sagar, AOR Mr. P. Mohith Rao, Adv. Mr. Shubham Bhalla, AOR Mr. Yajur Bhalla, Adv. Mr. Deepak Samota, Adv. Mr. Sumeir Ahuja, Adv. Mr. Siddharth Srivastava, Adv. Dr. Rajiv Nanda, Adv. Mrs. G. Indira, Adv. Ms. Havilila Nana, Adv. Ms. Mrinal Elker Mazumdar, Adv. Mr. Manish Yadav, Adv.

WP(C) 903/2021 3 Mr. Surjendu Sankar Das, Adv. Ms. Sakshi Tibrewal, Adv. Mr. Shovan Mishra, Adv. Ms. Bipasa Tripathy, Adv. Mrs. K. Enatoli Sema, Adv. Mr. Amit Kumar Singh, Adv. Mr. Pukhrambam Ramesh Kumar, Adv. Ms. Anupama Ngangom, Adv. Mr. Karun Sharma, Adv. Mr. Avijit Mani Tripathi, Adv. Mr. T.K. Nayak, Adv. Mr. Daniel Lyngdoh, Adv. Mr. Kynpham V. Kharlyngdoh, Adv. Mr. Siddhesh Kotwal, Adv. Ms. Ana Upadhyay, Adv. Ms. Manya Hasija, Adv. Ms. Pragya Barsaiyan, Adv. Mr. Akash Singh, Adv. Applicant-in-person Respondent-in-person UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R 1 List the Petition on 5 January 2022. (CHETAN KUMAR) (SAROJ KUMARI GAUR) A.R.-cum-P.S. Court Master

ITEM NO.41 Court 4 (Video Conferencing) SECTION PIL-W S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Writ Petition (Civil) No.903/2021 ABHINAV THAPAR Petitioner(s) VERSUS UNION OF INDIA MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND Respondent(s) FAMILY WELFARE GOVT. OF INDIA Date : 08-11-2021 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE D.Y. CHANDRACHUD HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. BOPANNA For Petitioner(s) Mr. Krishna Ballabh Thakur, AOR For Respondent(s) Mr. K.M. Nataraj, ASG Mr. Gurmeet Singh Makker, Adv. Mr. Sharath Nambiar, Adv. Mr. Raghavendra S. Srivatsa, Adv. Mr. Vatsal Joshi, Adv. Mr. Subhranshu Padhi, Adv. Mr. Sachin Jain, Applicant-in-person Respondent-in-person UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R 1 On the request of Mr Krishna Ballabh Thakur, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, liberty is granted to amend the Writ Petition to implead the State governments and the Union Territories as respondents. 2 Notice shall issue to the newly impleaded parties, returnable in four weeks. 3 Notice shall be served in addition through the Standing Counsel for the States/Union Territories. Counter affidavits shall be filed before the next date of listing. 4 List the Writ Petition on 10 December 2021. (CHETAN KUMAR) (SAROJ KUMARI GAUR) A.R.-cum-P.S. Court Master

1 ITEM NO.10 Court 4 (Video Conferencing) SECTION X S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Writ Petition(s)(Civil) No(s).903/2021 ABHINAV THAPAR Petitioner(s) VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ANR. Respondent(s) (FOR ADMISSION ) Date : 08-10-2021 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE D.Y. CHANDRACHUD HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V. NAGARATHNA For Petitioner(s) Mr. Krishna Ballabh Thakur, AOR For Respondent(s) UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R 1 The petition which invokes the jurisdiction under Article 32 of the Constitution has been filed in the public interest. The specific aspect which is canvassed in the petition is that during the course of the Covid-19 pandemic, patients had to take recourse to seeking medical facilities in private hospitals as a result of the inadequacy of the public health infrastructure and there were widespread complaints of over-charging of hapless patients. Families, including of those who did not survive the pandemic, have been brought to economic ruin, as a result. The petitioner has relied upon certain instances where local bodies, such as the Pune Municipal Corporation, have issued notice to private hospitals for over- charging patients and ensured refund of excess amounts charged. A writ of mandamus is sought to the Centre and the State Governments to set up a

2 mechanism for scrutinizing and auditing the bills of Covid-19 patients who have complaints of being over-charged. 2 The issue which has been raised in the petition concerns a wide strata of society consisting of patients and their relatives who have been over-charged during the Covid-19 pandemic and the issue which has been raised would merit serious attention. 3 Issue notice to the Union of India for the present, returnable in four weeks. 4 Liberty to serve the Central Agency, in addition. 5 Liberty to amend the cause title to delete the Cabinet Secretariat, so that the Union of India is represented through the Secretary in the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare. (SANJAY KUMAR-I) (SAROJ KUMARI GAUR) AR-CUM-PS COURT MASTER

SLP(C) D.11622/2021 1 ITEM NO.12 Court 5 (Video Conferencing) SECTION XIV S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) Diary No.11622/2021 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 01-05-2021 in WP(C) No.3031/2020 04-05-2021 in WP(C) No.3031/2020 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi) UNION OF INDIA Petitioner(s) VERSUS RAKESH MALHOTRA & ANR. Respondent(s) Date : 09-08-2021 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE D.Y. CHANDRACHUD HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.R. SHAH Mr. Jaideep Gupta, Sr. Adv. (A.C.) Ms. Meenakshi Gupta, Sr. Adv. (A.C.) Mr. Mohit Ram, Adv. Mr. Kunal Chatterji, Adv. For Petitioner(s) Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, ASG Mr. Rajat Nair, Adv. Mr. Kanu Aggarwal, Adv. Mr. Amit Sharma, Adv.

SLP(C) D.11622/2021 2 Mr. Prashant Singh – B, Adv. Mr. B. V. Balaram Das, AOR For Respondent(s) Mr. Rakesh Malhotra, Adv. Mr. Tungesh, AOR Mr. Rahul Mehra, Sr. Adv. Mr. Gautam Narayan, AOR Mr. Satyakam, Adv. Ms. Asmita Singh, Adv. Mr. G. Prakash, Adv. Mr. Jishnu M.L., Adv. Ms. Priyanka Prakash, Adv. Ms. Beena Prakash, Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R 1 Ms Aishwarya Bhati, learned Additional Solicitor General states that besides the interim report of the Sub Committee which was constituted to evaluate the oxygen requirements of the National Capital Territory which has been placed on the record, the National Task Force appointed by this Court has held numerous meetings and has submitted its reports to the Union government. 2 The reports of the NTF covering all aspects shall be placed on the record together with an Action Taken Report by the Union government indicating the steps which have been taken to implement the reports of the National Task Force. The Union of India shall duly apprise this Court on affidavit of the steps which have been taken to ensure that the recommendations are duly observed at the policy level in order to enhance preparedness to meet the Covid-19 pandemic for the present and for the foreseeable future. The recommendation of the National Task Force appointed by this Court and the ATR shall be separately annexed.

SLP(C) D.11622/2021 3 3 Copies of the reports of the National Task Force and of the Action Taken Report of the Union government shall be made available to all the learned counsel, including to Mr Jaideep Gupta and Ms Meenakshi Arora, learned senior counsel, who are assisting the Court as Amicus Curiae. 4 The Union government shall complete the above exercise within a period of two weeks. 5 It would be appropriate if the present proceedings are listed with the proceedings in which this Court has taken suo moto cognizance of the covid related issues. List these proceedings along with Suo Moto Writ (Civil) No 3 of 2021 on 27 August 2021. (CHETAN KUMAR) (SAROJ KUMARI GAUR) A.R.-cum-P.S. COURT MASTER

ITEM NO.11 Court 6 (Video Conferencing) SECTION PIL-W S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Writ Petition(s)(Civil) No(s). 613/2021 ARVIND KUMAR SHUKLA Petitioner(s) VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Respondent(s) (IA No.65672/2021-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. and IA No.65673/2021- EXEMPTION FROM FILING AFFIDAVIT ) Date : 23-07-2021 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. NAGESWARA RAO HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY For Petitioner(s) Mr. Arvind Kumar Shukla,in-person Ms. Reetu Sharma, AOR Mr. Nihal Ahmad, Adv Mr. Amit Kumar, Adv For Respondent(s) UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R List along with SMW (Civil) No.3.2021. (Geeta Ahuja) (Anand Prakash) Court Master Court Master

ITEM NO.303 Court 5 (Video Conferencing) SECTION PIL-W S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Writ Petition(Civil) No.495/2021 VISHAL TIWARI Petitioner(s) VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Respondent(s) (With appln.(s) for IA No.58248/2021-EXEMPTION FROM FILING AFFIDAVIT and IA No.58247/2021-PERMISSION TO APPEAR AND ARGUE IN PERSON) Date : 31-05-2021 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE D.Y. CHANDRACHUD HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. NAGESWARA RAO HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT For Petitioner(s) Petitioner-in-person For Respondent(s) Mr. Tushar Mehta, SG Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, ASG Mr. K.M. Nataraj, ASG Mr. Gurmeet Singh Makker, Adv. Mr. Rajat Nair, Adv. Mr. Kanu Agrawal, Adv. Mr. Amit Mahajan, Adv. Mr. Amit Sharma, Adv. Mr. Digvijay Dam, Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R 1 Tag with SMW (C) No 3 of 2021. (CHETAN KUMAR) (SAROJ KUMARI GAUR) A.R-cum-P.S. BRANCH OFFICER

ITEM NO.304 Court 5 (Video Conferencing) SECTION PIL-W S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Writ Petition (Civil) No.512/2021 NATIONAL CENTRE FOR PROMOTION OF EMPLOYMENT Petitioner(s) FOR DISABLED PEOPLE (NCPEDP) & ORS. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Respondent(s) (With appln.(s) for IA No.59265/2021-APPLICATION FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING ORIGINAL VAKALATNAMA/OTHER DOCUMENT) Date : 31-05-2021 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE D.Y. CHANDRACHUD HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. NAGESWARA RAO HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT For Petitioner(s) Mr. Devadatt Kamat, Sr. Adv. Mr. Javedur Rahman, Adv. Ms. Karuvaki Mohanty, Adv. Ms. Deeksha Gujral, Adv. Mr. Shivendra Singh, AOR For Respondent(s) Mr. Tushar Mehta, SG Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, ASG Mr. K.M. Nataraj, ASG Mr. Gurmeet Singh Makker, Adv. Mr. Rajat Nair, Adv. Mr. Kanu Agrawal, Adv. Mr. Amit Mahajan, Adv. Mr. Amit Sharma, Adv. Mr. Digvijay Dam, Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R 1 Tag with SMW (C) No 3 of 2021. (CHETAN KUMAR) (SAROJ KUMARI GAUR) A.R.-cum-P.S. BRANCH OFFICER

ITEM NO.305 Court 5 (Video Conferencing) SECTION PIL-W S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Writ Petition (Civil) No.486/2021 VAKUL VARDHAN GAUTAM Petitioner(s) VERSUS ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA & ORS. Respondent(s) (With appln.(s) for IA No.57756/2021-PERMISSION TO APPEAR AND ARGUE IN PERSON) Date : 31-05-2021 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE D.Y. CHANDRACHUD HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. NAGESWARA RAO HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT For Petitioner(s) Petitioner-in-person For Respondent(s) Mr. Tushar Mehta, SG Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, ASG Mr. K.M. Nataraj, ASG Mr. Gurmeet Singh Makker, Adv. Mr. Rajat Nair, Adv. Mr. Kanu Agrawal, Adv. Mr. Amit Mahajan, Adv. Mr. Amit Sharma, Adv. Mr. Digvijay Dam, Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R 1 Tag with SMW (C) No 3 of 2021. 2 (CHETAN KUMAR) (SAROJ KUMARI GAUR) A.R.-cum-P.S. BRANCH OFFICER

ITEM NO.306 Court 5 (Video Conferencing) SECTION PIL-W S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Writ Petition (Civil) No.472/2021 SANJAI KUMAR PATHAK Petitioner(s) VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Respondent(s) (With appln.(s) for IA No.56295/2021-EXEMPTION FROM FILING AFFIDAVIT and IA No.56294/2021-PERMISSION TO APPEAR AND ARGUE IN PERSON and IA No.56296/2021-APPLICATION FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING TYPED DOCUMENTS) Date : 31-05-2021 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE D.Y. CHANDRACHUD HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. NAGESWARA RAO HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT For Petitioner(s) Petitioner-in-person For Respondent(s) Mr. Tushar Mehta, SG Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, ASG Mr. K.M. Nataraj, ASG Mr. Gurmeet Singh Makker, Adv. Mr. Rajat Nair, Adv. Mr. Kanu Agrawal, Adv. Mr. Amit Mahajan, Adv. Mr. Amit Sharma, Adv. Mr. Digvijay Dam, Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R 1 Tag with SMW (C) No 3 of 2021. (CHETAN KUMAR) (SAROJ KUMARI GAUR) A.R.-cum-P.S. BRANCH OFFICER

ITEM NO.307 Court 5 (Video Conferencing) SECTION PIL-W S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Writ Petition (Civil) No.475/2021 VISHAL TIWARI Petitioner(s) VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Respondent(s) (With appln.(s) IA No.56713/2021-EXEMPTION FROM FILING AFFIDAVIT and IA No.56710/2021-PERMISSION TO APPEAR AND ARGUE IN PERSON) Date : 31-05-2021 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE D.Y. CHANDRACHUD HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. NAGESWARA RAO HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT For Petitioner(s) Petitioner-in-person For Respondent(s) Mr. Tushar Mehta, SG Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, ASG Mr. K.M. Nataraj, ASG Mr. Gurmeet Singh Makker, Adv. Mr. Rajat Nair, Adv. Mr. Kanu Agrawal, Adv. Mr. Amit Mahajan, Adv. Mr. Amit Sharma, Adv. Mr. Digvijay Dam, Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R 1 Tag with SMW (C) No 3 of 2021. (CHETAN KUMAR) (SAROJ KUMARI GAUR) A.R.-cum-P.S. BRANCH OFFICER

ITEM NO.308 Court 5 (Video Conferencing) SECTION PIL-W S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Writ Petition (Civil) No.493/2021 NARENDRA MISHRA Petitioner(s) VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Respondent(s) (With appln.(s) IA No.58214/2021-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. and IA No.58213/2021-PERMISSION TO APPEAR AND ARGUE IN PERSON) Date : 31-05-2021 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE D.Y. CHANDRACHUD HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. NAGESWARA RAO HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT For Petitioner(s) Petitioner-in-person For Respondent(s) Mr. Tushar Mehta, SG Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, ASG Mr. K.M. Nataraj, ASG Mr. Gurmeet Singh Makker, Adv. Mr. Rajat Nair, Adv. Mr. Kanu Agrawal, Adv. Mr. Amit Mahajan, Adv. Mr. Amit Sharma, Adv. Mr. Digvijay Dam, Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R 1 Tag with SMW (C) No 3 of 2021. (CHETAN KUMAR) (SAROJ KUMARI GAUR) A.R.-cum-P.S. BRANCH OFFICER

ITEM NO.309 Court 5 (Video Conferencing) SECTION PIL-W S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Writ Petition (Civil) No.485/2021 RASHMI BANSAL Petitioner(s) VERSUS UNION OF INDIA THROUGH SECRETARY MINISTRY Respondent(s) OF HEALTH (With appln.(s) for IA No.57728/2021-EXEMPTION FROM FILING AFFIDAVIT and IA No.57727/2021-PERMISSION TO APPEAR AND ARGUE IN PERSON) Date : 31-05-2021 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE D.Y. CHANDRACHUD HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. NAGESWARA RAO HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT For Petitioner(s) Petitioner-in-person For Respondent(s) Mr. Tushar Mehta, SG Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, ASG Mr. K.M. Nataraj, ASG Mr. Gurmeet Singh Makker, Adv. Mr. Rajat Nair, Adv. Mr. Kanu Agrawal, Adv. Mr. Amit Mahajan, Adv. Mr. Amit Sharma, Adv. Mr. Digvijay Dam, Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R 1 Tag with SMW (C) No 3 of 2021. (CHETAN KUMAR) (SAROJ KUMARI GAUR) A.R.-cum-P.S. BRANCH OFFICER

1 ITEM NO.302 Court 5 (Video Conferencing) SECTION PIL-W S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Writ Petition(Civil) No.863/2020 SACHIN JAIN Petitioner(s) VERSUS UNION OF INDIA Respondent(s) (With appln.(s) for IA No. 57992/2021 - APPROPRIATE ORDERS/DIRECTIONS) Date : 31-05-2021 These matters were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE D.Y. CHANDRACHUD HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. NAGESWARA RAO HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT For Petitioner(s) Petitioner-in-person For Respondent(s) Mr. Tushar Mehta, SG Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, ASG Mr. K.M. Nataraj, ASG Mr. Zoheb Hussain, Adv. Mr. Rajat Nair, Adv. Mr. Kanu Agarwal, Adv. Ms. Swati Ghildiyal, Adv. Mr. Adit Khorana, Adv. Mr. Raj Bahadur Yadav, Adv. Mr. Gurmeet Singh Makker, Adv. Mr. Amit Sharma, Adv.

2 Mr. Amit Mahajan, Adv. Mr. Digvijay Dam, Adv. Ms. Manisha T. Karia, AOR Mr. Adarsh Kumar, Adv. Ms. Nidhi Nagpal, Adv. Mr. Barun K. Sinha, Adv. Mr. Vishnu Sharma, Adv. Ms. Pallavi Langar, AOR Mr. Suhaan Mukerji, Adv. Mr. Vishal Prasad, Adv. Mr. Nikhil Parikshith, Adv. Mr. Abhishek Manchanda, Adv. Mr. Savandeep Pahari, Adv. M/s. PLR Chambers & Co. Respondent-in-person, AOR Mr. Chirag M. Shroff, AOR Mr. K.V. Jagdishvaran, Adv. Ms. G. Indira, AOR Mr. Anand Grover, Sr. Adv. Mr. Irshaan Kakar, Adv. Ms. Nupur Kumar, AOR Ms. Uttara Babbar, AOR Mr. Manan Bansal, Adv. Ms. Shweta Mohta, Adv. Mr. Pukhrambam Ramesh Kumar, AOR Ms. Anupama Ngangom, Adv. Mr. Karun Sharma, Adv. Mr. Mahesh Agarwal, Adv. Ms. Parul Shukla, Adv. Mr. Rohan Talwar, Adv. Mr. E. C. Agrawala, AOR Mr. V. G. Pragasam, AOR

3 Mr. Raghvendra Kumar, Adv. Mr. Anand Kumar Dubey, Adv. Mr. Narendra Kumar, AOR Mr. Gurmeet Singh Makker, AOR M/s. Gorkela Law Office Mr. M. Yogesh Kanna, AOR Mr. Jishnu M.L., Adv. Ms. Priyanka Prakash, Adv. Ms. Beena Prakash, Adv. Mr. G. Prakash, AOR Ms. Astha Sharma, AOR Mr. Manish Kumar, Adv. Mr. S.P.M. Tripathi, Adv. Ms. Swagoti Batchas, Adv. Mr. Satish Kumar, AOR Ms. K. Enatoli Sema, AOR Mr. Shuvodeep Roy, AOR Mr. Abhimanyu Tewari, AOR Ms. Eliza Bar, Adv. Mr. V. N. Raghupathy, AOR Mr. Neeraj Kishan Kaul, Sr. Adv. Mr. Rajeev Maheshwaranand Roy, AOR Mr. Aniruddha A Joshi, Adv. Mr. Akash Lamba, Adv. Mr. Manish Kumar, AOR Mr. Bhaskar Bhardwaj, Adv. Mr. Devashish Bharuka, AOR Mr. Sachin Patil, AOR Mr. Amit Kumar, Sr. Adv., Adv. Gen., Meghalaya Mr. Avijit Mani Tripathi, AOR

4 Ms. Rekha Bakshi, Adv. Mr. T.K. Nayak, Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R 1 Tag with SMW (C) No 3 of 2021. (CHETAN KUMAR) (SAROJ KUMARI GAUR) A.R-cum-P.S. BRANCH OFFICER

1 ITEM NO.310 Court 5 (Video Conferencing) SECTION PIL-W S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Writ Petition (Civil) No.482/2021 SAVE THEM INDIA FOUNDATION Petitioner(s) VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Respondent(s) (With appln.(s) for IA No.57506/2021-EXEMPTION FROM FILING AFFIDAVIT) Date : 31-05-2021 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE D.Y. CHANDRACHUD HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. NAGESWARA RAO HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT For Petitioner(s) Mr. Vishal Tiwari, Adv. Mr. Abhigya Kushwah, AOR Ms. Pooja Giri, Adv. Mr. Shaildendra Mani Tripathi, Adv. Ms. Susmita Mahala, Adv. Mr. Siddharth Rajkumar Murarka, Adv. Ms. Sunita Yadav, Adv. Mr. Pradeep Kumar Dubey, Adv. Ms. Anamika Kushwaha, Adv. Ms. Nandita Rao, Adv. Mrs. Mahija Reddy, Adv. Mr. K.N. Agnihotri, Adv. Mr. Virender Arora, Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. Tushar Mehta, SG Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, ASG Mr. K.M. Nataraj, ASG Mr. Gurmeet Singh Makker, Adv. Mr. Rajat Nair, Adv. Mr. Kanu Agrawal, Adv. Mr. Amit Mahajan, Adv. Mr. Amit Sharma, Adv. Mr. Digvijay Dam, Adv.

2 UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R 1 Tag with SMW (C) No 3 of 2021. (CHETAN KUMAR) (SAROJ KUMARI GAUR) A.R.-cum-P.S. BRANCH OFFICER

1 Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No.3 of 2021 IN RE: DISTRIBUTION OF ESSENTIAL SUPPLIES AND SERVICES DURING PANDEMIC

2 O R D E R This order has been divided into the following sections to facilitate analysis: A Introduction B Submission by Counsel C National Vaccination Policy D Separation of Powers E Issues with the Liberalized Vaccination Policy E.1 Vaccine Procurement and Distribution among Different Categories of the Population E.2 Effects of Vaccination by Private Hospitals under the Liberalized Vaccination Policy E.3 Basis and Impact of Differential Pricing E.4 Vaccine Logistics E.5 Digital Divide F Conclusion

PART A 3 A Introduction 1 Proceedings in the present suo mot u writ petition were initiated on 22 April 2021, when this Court took cognizance of the management of the COVID - 19 pandemic during the second wave . Subsequently, hearings were conducted on 23 April 2021, 27 April 2021 and 30 April 2021 whe n submissions were heard on behalf of the Union of India 1 , States/Union Territories 2 , learned Amici appointed by this Court and some of the intervenors. 2 On 30 April 2021, this Court passed a detailed order in relation, inter alia , to the following issues: vaccination policy, supply of essential drugs, supply of medical oxygen, medical infrastructure, augmentation of healthcare workf or ce and the issues faced by them , and issues of freedom of speech and expression during the COVID - 19 pandemic. In its order, t his Court had noted that its observations and directions were in consonance with a bounded - deliberative approach 3 and hence, the UoI was directed to re - consider its policies on the a bove issues , taking into account this Court‟s observations. 3 Following the order dated 30 April 2021 , another two judge Bench of this Court heard a S pecial L eave P etition 4 against an order of the High Court of Delhi in relation to the supply of medical oxygen to the N ational C apital T erritory 5 of Delh i. During the course of the proceedings in that matter, the Bench primarily issued directions in relation to the supply of medical oxygen to the NCT of Delhi. However, through its order dated 6 May 2021, it also constituted a National Task Force to provide a public heath response to the COVID - 19 pandemic on the basis of a scientific approach. T he terms of reference of this National Task Force include d, inter alia , assessing and making recommendations for the need , availability and distribution of medical oxygen; devising a methodology for allocation of medical oxygen and periodical review of the allocation based on the stage of the pandemic; 1 “ U o I ” /interchangeably referred to as the “ Central Government ” 2 “ UTs ” 3 Sandra Fredman, “Adjudication as Accountability: A Deliberative Approach” in Nicholas Bamforth and Peter Leyland (eds), Accountability in the Contemporary Constitution (Oxford Univer sity Press, 2013) 4 Union of India vs Rakesh Malhotra and another , SLP (Civil) (Diary) No 11622 of 2021 5 “ NCT ”

4 providing recommendations for augmenting the supplies of oxygen; facilita ting audits in each State/UT to determine whether oxygen supplies had reached its destination ; efficacy, transparency and efficiency of the distribution networks within the State/UT; providing recommendations for ensuring availability of essential drugs, a ugmentation of medical and paramedical staff, management of the pandemic and treatment of cases. 4 During the course of the proceedings on 31 May 2021, we had the benefit of perusing the details provided in the affidavit filed by the UoI on 9 May 2021. The submissions contained in the affidavit were supplemented and updated in the hearing by Mr Tushar Mehta, learned Solicitor General of India, appearing on behalf of the Central Government. We have further heard the learned Amici , Mr Jaideep Gupta and Ms Meenakshi Arora, learned Senior c ounsel. 5 Since the last hearing in this matter, the second wave of the COVID - 19 pandemic has started receding across the nation and the situation appears to have become more manageable. Hence, some of the i ssues discussed in the previous orders can await further deliberation . However, the issue of vaccination is absolutely crucial, since health experts globally agree that vaccination of the nation‟s entire eligible population is the singular most imp ortant task in effectively combating the COVID - 19 pandemic in the long run. Hence, during the course of the proceedings on 31 May 2021, this Court has limited itself to hearing submissions on the UoI‟s vaccination policy and its roadmap for the future. By way of abundant clarification, we note that all of the issues contained in this Court‟s previous orders still retain their overall importan ce , and this Court shall continue to monitor them alongside the National Task Force and intervene whenever necessary . 6 It is also important to note that numerous interlocutory applications and affidavits by individual State/UT G overnments and members of civil society have been filed before us in this matter. W e have perused them to understand the key issues being raised ther e , along with the helpful notes provided by the Amici .

PART B 5 B Submission by Counsel 7 Mr Tushar Mehta, learned Solicitor General, relying on the U o I‟s affidavit dated 9 May 2021, has made the following submissions to supplement it , in view of the recent updates : (i) The vaccinat ion drive will be complete by the end of December 2021, and the Central Government is in active talks with foreign vaccine manufacturers at the highest political and diplomatic levels, to ensure the adequate supply of va ccines; (ii) I t would be incorrect to state that a consequence of the UoI‟s updated policy on vaccination of those in the 18 - 44 age group is that there will be competition amongst the States/UTs; and (iii) E veryone above the age of 45 years can continue to get vaccinated at a facility through on - site registration, without previously having to book an appointment through CoWIN. 8 Mr Jaideep Gupta and Ms Meenakshi Arora, learned Senior counsel and Amici , have raised the following issues relating to vaccination dist ribution, augmentation of vaccine production and differential pricing of vaccines and the future preparedness for dealing with the COVID - 19 pandemic: (i) With respect to the procurement of vaccines, reports suggest that foreign vaccine manufacturers are generally not receptive or open to a dialogue with State /UT Governments on the basis that, as a matter of corporate policy, they only deal with federal governments of different nations; (ii) Since 1978 till 1 May 2021, the U o I has implemented the Universal Imm unization Programme 6 under which essential vaccines were procured by the U o I and were distributed to States /UTs free of cost for administering them to the end beneficiary. T he said policy has held the test of times. Even during the vaccination drive for CO VID - 19 in phases 1 and 2 for vaccinati o n of healthcare workers 7 , frontline workers 8 and persons above the age of 45 years, the U o I procured all the vaccines and distributed them to State /UT 6 “ UIP ” 7 “ HCWs ” 8 “ FLWs ”

PART B 6 Governments for administration. The single procurement model has also been followed by other nations for ensuring fast and effective administration of vaccines against COVID - 19; (iii) The UIP has been replaced by the Liberalized Pricing and Accelerated National COVID - 19 Vaccination Strategy 9 from 1 May 2021 in phase 3 of the vaccination drive , whereby State /UT Governments or private hospitals are required to procure vaccines for persons between the age group of 18 - 44 years from the private manufacturers on the b asis of a pro rata quota set by the U o I; (iv) The Liberalized Vaccination Policy leaves the State /UT Governments to fend for themselves, rather than the Central Government acting on behalf of the entire nation. As a consequence, the vaccine manufacturers are fr ee to implement a differential procurement price for the U o I for vaccinating persons above 45 years of age, and for the State /UT Governments and private hospitals for vaccinating the persons between 18 - 44 years of age; (v) While t he Liberali zed Vaccination Policy has been introduced to spur competitive prices, there are multiple States /UTs competing to purchase a scarce commodity from a few vaccine manufacturers . Consequently, the manufacturers have the advantage of creating a monopoly and selli ng it at any price that they desire to private healthcare institutions . The State /UT Governments do not enjoy the unique position of the U o I, which has the advantage of being a monopolistic buyer and can negotiate an appropriate price for the vaccines on b ehalf of the entire population of India; (vi) The Liberalized Vaccination Policy puts an undue burden on persons between the age group of 18 - 44 years, specifically persons belonging to a poor socio - economic background, who have to purchase two doses of vaccine s either from the State /UT Governments or private hospitals; (vii) In the alternative, the U o I has stated that all State /UT Governments have agreed to vaccinate their population free of cost and have undertaken to bear the burden of the vaccines which are availa ble at a higher purchase price than the one available to the U o I. Thus, the end beneficiary is not impacted by the 9 “ Liberalized Vaccination Policy ”

PART B 7 differential pricing in the Liberalized Vaccination Policy. With regard to this submission, the Amic i have raised the following concerns: (a) While some States /UTs have announced that they will vaccinate their population for free, this policy statement must be confirmed by the State /UT Governments on affidavit before th is Court. The Liberalized Vaccination Policy as it stands today, does not inc orporate a condition whereby the cost of vaccination is imposed on the State /UT Governments. Instead, the end beneficiary is liable to pay the cost. There is a necessity for the State /UT Governments to place their decisions on record and for it to be part of the formal policy, such that persons can enforce their right to free vaccination , including before the courts; (b) Although the State /UT Governments may have announced free vaccination for their population , some of the m are contesting the Liberalized Vacci nation Policy before th is Court and have advanced submissions for universal vaccination by the Central Government. Thus, it cannot conclusively be stated that State /UT Governments have agreed to the policy decision taken by the Central Government of deviat ing from the single procurement model; (c) The Liberalized Vaccination Policy, as a consequence of its differential pricing, treats individuals living across India residing in different States /UTs unequally , as States /UTs that are financially distressed may n ot be able to afford to purchase the vaccines at the prices set by the vaccine manufacturers or to lift the quantity allocated to the m ; and (d) The end result of the Liberalized Vaccination Policy is that the U o I can purchase vaccines at Rs 150 per dose for Covishield and Covaxin, while the State /UT Governments have to pay Rs 300 and Rs 400 per dose respectively. If the U o I were to be the single procurement agency for all vaccines at a fixed cost, then the cost of vaccination to the public exchequer would be substantially lower. Thus, it is incorrect to suggest that the end beneficiary, who contributes to the public exchequer, will not be unduly impacted ; (viii) Although public health is a subject under Entry 6 of List II (State List) of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution, Entry 81 of List I (Union List) deals with

PART B 8 inter - State migration and inter - State quarantine and Entry 29 of List III (Concurrent List) deals with prevention of extension from one State to another of infectious or contagious diseases. Thus, th e management of the pandemic, control of the spread of COVID - 19, vaccination policy and pricing, are the responsibility of the Central Government, which must work in tandem with the State /UT Governments. The Liberalized Vaccination Policy , by putting the b urden of vaccination of persons between 18 - 44 years of age on the State/UT Governments, conflicts with this constitutional balance of responsibilities between the Centre and States /UTs ; (ix) With regard to the vaccine distribution, the Liberalized Vaccination Policy has created a quota of 50:25:25 for the 18 - 4 4 age group . The quota of 25% that is available to State /UT Governments, which is equivalent to the private hospitals, is extremely disproportionate and not in touch with societal realities , as a large number of persons may not be able to afford two doses of a vaccine from a private hospital. Thus, if State /UT Governments are to bear the burden of vaccinating a majority of the persons in their States /UTs , the quota available to the private ho spitals must be reduced; (x) The Liberalized Vaccination Policy does not provide any clarity on the basis of the pro rata allotment of the doses to each State /UT (available for purchase by the State /UT Government and private hospitals). The Policy does not in dicate whether such apportionment will be on the basis of population; state of the pandemic in each State /UT ; or the number of persons with co - morbidities between 18 - 44 years of age, among others. Further, the Policy does not indicate whether the pro rata allotment will be made by the U o I or the private vaccine manufacturer; (xi) It is reported that U o I on certain occasions has stated that it will refrain from interfering in the issue of vaccine distribution. Contrarily, UoI has also been stated that it may decide to redistribute the vaccines procured by it among State /UT Governments. The basis on which the re - distribution of vaccines will take place among States /UTs has not been provided in the policy document; (xii) The Liberalized Vaccination Policy does not pr ovide for prioritizing of persons with co - morbidities; persons with disabilities or suffering from other illnesses; care - givers for the elderly and sick; teachers and others in the age group of 18 - 44 years. Further, t he CoWIN application is not built with functions which

PART B 9 prioritize a certain category of persons , as it only books appointment s on a first - cum - first - serve d basis; (xiii) News reports indicate that crematorium workers have either not been vaccinated, or are unaware that they are eligible for vaccination in phase s 1 and 2; (xiv) With regard to preparedness , t he U o I has claimed that it will be able to vaccinate a substantial number of persons (around 100 crore persons requiring 200 crore doses) by December 2021 . However, no projectio ns have been shared with th is Court regarding how this target would be achieved. B ased on reports, it appears that the U o I has factored a number of vaccines that are currently in their development stages to reach its projected number of 200 crore doses. Th is approach would be misguided as the success and efficacy of vaccines that are currently in the stage of clinical trials is uncertain and cannot be guaranteed ; (xv) There is material to suggest that the augmentation of vaccine production will be inadequate to vaccinate the population between 18 - 44 years of age. The total population of this age group is 59 crores, which would require around 122 crore doses. Based on reports, the existing manufacturers ( Serum Institute of India 10 and Bharat Biotech India Limited 11 ) will be able to produce less than 10 crore doses per month. Optimistically, around 15 - 20 crores doses of Sputnik V will be available per month. At this rate, it would take around 12 months for the population in this age group to be inoculated, by which t ime the virus may have mutated, causing further waves of the pandemic; (xvi) M eanwhile, there is a necessity to ensure that guidelines regarding standardization of masks are formulated and publicized . Thus, medical guidance is necessary to ensure that masks of a ppropriate quality are produced and distributed free of cost to curb the spread of the infection; and (xvii) It has been reported that due to dearth of electric crematori a , persons who have succumbed to COVID - 19 are not dignified with a prope r cremation and are cremated without any rituals. The U o I and State /UT Governments may consider forming appropriate guidelines which augment the creation of infrastructure for electric crematori a and a protocol for cremation of the dead. 10 “ SII ” 11 “ BBIL ”

PART C 10 C National Vaccination Policy 9 Phase 1 of the National COVID - 19 Vaccination Strategy was launched on 16 January 2021 and 1 February 2021 and was targeted towards protecting HCWs and FLWs . Phase 2 was initiated on 1 March 2021 and 1 April 2021 , and was directe d towards protecting the most vulnerable population in the age group of persons above 45 years of age. In phase 1 and 2, t he U o I was procuring the vaccines and distributing them to the States / UTs free of cost for disbursal through government and private CO VID - 19 vaccination centres. The private facilities were not allowed to charge a sum above Rs 250 per person per dose (Rs 150 for vaccines and Rs 100 as operational charges) from a beneficiary. 10 During p hase 2 , eligible beneficiaries could register and book appointments for vaccination on the CoWIN 2.0 portal or other IT applications such as Aarogya Setu. From 1 March 2021 onwards, t he population aged 60 years or which would attain the age of 60 years or more a s on 1 January 2022 w as eligible to register on the CoWIN platform. Further, persons who were aged 45 years or would attain the age of 45 years to 59 years as on 1 January 2022 and had any of the 20 specified co - morbidities were also eligible to register o n the CoWIN platform. From 1 April 2021 onwards, all persons who were aged 45 years or would attain the age of 45 years to 59 years as on 1 January 2022 were eligible to register on the CoWIN platform. O n - site registration facility was also made available at vaccination centres in this phase . 11 In p hase 3 , a Liberalized Vaccination Policy was introduced by the U o I, which came into effect on 1 May 2021. W e have perused the documents available in the public domain (guidance note 12 , press releases 13 and policy document 14 ) issued by the Central Government to understand the written policy of the Central Government 12 Guidance Note For COWIN 2.0 dated 28 February 2021, available at <https://www.mohfw.gov.in/pdf/GuidancedocCOWIN2.pdf> 13 Press releases dated 28 February 2021 and 19 April 2021, available at <https://pib.gov.in/PressReleseDetail.aspx?PRID=1701549> and <htt ps://pib.gov.in/PressReleseDetail.aspx?PRID=1712710> 14 Liberalized Pricing and Accelerated National Covid - 19 Vaccination Strategy dated 24 April 2021, available at <https://www.mohfw.gov.in/pdf/LiberalisedPricingandAcceleratedNationalCovid19VaccinationStra tegy 2042021.pdf>

PART C 11 with regard to p hase 3. Based on such documents, the main elements of the L iberalized Vaccination P olicy can be identified as: (i) Vaccine manufa cturers are required to supply 50% of their monthly Central Drugs Laboratory 15 doses to the U o I and would be free to supply the remaining 50% doses to State /UT Governments and in „other than Government of India channel‟ 16 ; (ii) Manufacturers were required to make a declaration of the price of the 50% supply that would be available to State /UT Governments and in the „other than GoI channel‟ before 1 May 2021. Based on this price, States /UTs , private hospitals and industrial establishments through their hospitals ma y procure vaccines from the manufacturers. Private hospitals would be able to procure their supplies only from the 50% supply earmarked for „other than GoI channel‟ ; (iii) The prices charged for vaccination by private hospitals would be monitored. As a result, the earlier dispensation where private COVID - 19 vaccination centres which received doses from the U o I could charge up to Rs 250 per dose ceased to exist ; (iv) The population which is now eligible to obtain vaccines at U o I‟s vaccination centres is limited to HCWs, FLWs and those above 45 years of age. T he population between 18 - 44 years is eligible to obtain vaccines from „other than GoI channel‟ ; (v) The vaccination would continue to be available for free for eligible populati on groups in those vaccination centres which receive their vaccine doses from U o I ; (vi) The vaccination would continue to be a part of the National Vaccination Programme and would follow all existing guidelines. The CoWIN platform would capture the vaccination, stocks and price per vaccination applicable in all vaccination centres. The vaccination drive would comply with „ Adverse Event Following Immunization ‟ management and reporting, digital vaccination certificate and all other prescribed norms ; 15 “ CDL ” 16 “ other than GoI channel ”

PART D 12 (vii) The division of 50% supply to U o I and 50% to „other than GoI channel‟ would be applicable uniformly across all the vaccine manufactures in the country ; (viii) The fully ready to use imported vaccines are allowed to be utilized entirely in the „other than GoI channel‟ ; and (ix) The U o I from its share will allocate vaccines to States/UTs based on criteria of performance (speed of administration, average consumption) and extent of infection (number of COVID - 19 cases). Wastage of vaccines would also be considered in the criteria and would affect the allocation negatively. Based on the above criteria, a State - wise quota would be decided and communicated to the States /UTs in advance. 12 The facility of only online appointment on the CoWIN portal was initially introduced for the entirety of the population between the ages of 18 - 44 years. Later, o n 24 May 2021 17 , the U o I announced that on - site registration will be made availabl e for the 18 - 44 years age group. However, this is contingent on: (i) the State /UT Government enabling this policy; and (ii) only in cases of wastage at a particular government COVID - 19 vaccination centre due to a no - show by an online appointee. Further, t h is facility has not been expanded to private COVID - 19 vaccination centres. D Separation of Power s 13 At the outset, we seek to clarify the nature of this Court‟s jurisdiction in the exercise of the power of judicial review over the management of the COVID - 19 pandemic in India. In its affidavit dated 9 May 2021 , the U o I has highlighted a few concerns which are detailed below: (i) The e xecutive is battling an unprecedented crisis and the government needs discretion to formulate policy in larger interest and its wisd om should be trusted; (ii) The current vaccine policy conf or ms to A rticle s 1 4 and 21 of the Constitution , and requires no interference from the c ourts as the e xecutive ha s “room for free play in the joints” while dealing with a pandemic of this magnitude; 17 Available at <https://www.pib.gov.in/PressReleasePage.aspx?PRID=1721225>

PART D 13 (iii) The c urrent steps are thoughtfully undertaken to tide over an imminent crisis, which may turn out to be imprudent in the long run. However, they need to be appreciated from a short - term and holistic perspective; (iv) Judicial review over executive policies is permi ssible only on account of manifest arbitrariness . No interference from judicial proceedings is called for when the e xecutive is operating on expert medical and scientific opinion to tackle a medical crisis; and (v) Any over - zealous judicial intervention, thoug h well - meaning, in the absence of expert advice or administrative experience may lead to unintended circumstances where the e xecutive is left with little room to explore innovative solutions. 14 It is trite to state that separation of powers is a part of the basic structure of the Constitution. Policy - making continues to be in the sole domain of the e xecutive . The j udiciary does n o t possess the authority or competence to assume the role of the e xecutive , which is democratically accountable for its actions and has access to the resources which are instrumental to policy formulation. However, this separation of powers does not result in courts lacking jurisdiction in conducting a judicial review of these policies 18 . Our Constitution does not envisage courts to be silent spectators when constitutional rights of citizens are infringed by executive policies. Judicial review and soliciting constitutional justification for policies formulated by the e xecutive is an essential function, which the courts are entrusted to p erform. 15 We had clarified in our order dated 30 April 2021, that in the context of the public health emergency with which the country is currently grappling , th is Court appreciates the dynamic nature of the measures. Across the globe , the e xecutive has been given a wider margin in enacting measures which ordinarily may have violated the liberty of individuals, but are now incumbent to curb the pandemic. Historically, the j udiciary has also recognized that constitutional scrutiny is transformed during such pu blic health emergencies , where the e xecutive functions in rapid consultation with scientists and other experts. In 1905, the Supreme Court of the United States in Jacobson v s Massachusetts 19 considered a constitutional liberty challenge to a compulsory vacc ination law that was enacted to combat the 18 DDA vs Joint Action Committee , (2008) 2 SCC 672 19 197 U.S. 11 (1905)

PART D 14 smallpox epidemic. Justice Harlan had noted the complex role of the government in battling public health emergencies in the following terms : “..the State may invest local bodies called into existence for purposes of local administration with authority in some appropriate way to safeguard the public health and the public safety... While this court should guard with firmness every right appertaining to life, liberty or property as secured to the individual by the Supreme Law of the Land, it is of the last importance that it should not invade the domain of local authority except when it is plainly necessary to do so in order to enforce that law. The safe ty and the health of the people of Massachusetts are, in the first instance, for that Commonwealth to guard and protect……So far as they can be reached by any government, they depend, primarily, upon such action as the State in its wisdom may take, and we d o not perceive that this legislation has invaded any right secured by the Federal Constitution.” The Supreme Court of United States, speaking in the wake of the present COVID - 19 pandemic in various instances, ha s overruled policies by observing , inter alia , that “ Members of this Court are not public health experts, and we should respect the judgment of those with special expertise and responsibility in this area. But even in a pandemic, the Constitution cannot be put away and forgotten ” 20 and “ a public h ealth emergency does not give Governors and other public officials carte blanche to disregard the Constitution for as long as the medical problem persists. As more medical and scientific evidence becomes available, and as States have time to craft policies in light of that evidence, courts should expect policies that more carefully account for constitutional rights ” 21 . 20 Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn, New York vs Cuomo , 592 U.S., 141 S. Ct. 63 21 Calvary Chapel Dayton Valley vs Steve Sisolak, Governor of Nevada, et al , 140 S.Ct. 2603 (Mem) (Justice Alito Dissenting Opinion)

PART E 15 16 Similarly, c ourts across the globe have responded to constitutional challenges to executive policies that have directly or indirectly violated rights and liberties of citizens. Courts have often reiterated the expertise of the e xecutive in managing a public health crisis, but have also warn ed against arbitrary and irrational policies being excused in the garb of the “wide latitude” to the executive that is necessitated to battle a pandemic. This Court in Gujarat Mazdoor Sabha vs State of Gujarat 22 , albeit while speaking in the context of labo ur rights, had noted that policies to counteract a pandemic must continue to be evaluated from a threshold of proportionality to determine if they, inter alia , have a rational connection with the object that is sought to be achieved and are necessary to achieve them. 17 In grappling with the second wave of the pandemic, this Court does n o t intend to second - guess the wisdom of the e xecutive when it chooses between two competing and efficacious policy measures. However, it continues to exercise j urisdiction to determine if the chosen policy measure conforms to the standards of reasonableness, militates against manifest arbitrariness and protects the right to life of all persons . Th is Court is presently assuming a dialogic jurisdiction where variou s stakeholders are provided a forum to raise constitutional grievances with respect to the management of the pandemic. Hence, t h is Court would , under the auspices of an open court judicial process, conduct deliberations with the e xecutive where justificati ons for existing policies would be elicited and evaluated to assess whether they survive constitutional scrutiny. E Issues with the Liberalized Vaccination Policy E.1 Vaccine Procurement and Distribution among Different Categories of the Population 18 In our order dated 30 April 2021, the U o I was directed to clarify its vaccination procurement and distribution policy, especially after the i ntroduction of the Liberalized Vaccination Policy. We had also directed the U o I to apprise this Court regarding the projec ted numbers of vaccinations that would be made available in the coming months to the public and the efforts being taken to augment vaccine 22 AIR 2020 SC 4601, para 9

PART E 16 production. In its affidavit dated 9 May 2021, UoI has made the following submissions: (i) The vaccination policy for COV ID - 19 that was adopted prior to 1 May 2021 in phases 1 and 2 , was designed as a system of prioritization. After vaccinating the HCWs and FLWs , vaccination was opened up for age groups on account of their heightened vulnerability and mortality to COVID - 19, in consonance with the WHO guidelines and international practice; (ii) In phase 1, HCWs (starting from 16 January 2021) and FLWs (starting from 2 February 2021) were vaccinated. In phase 2, persons above 60 years of age and persons over 45 years of age with ce rtain co - morbidities (starting from 1 March 202 1 ) and all persons over 45 years of age (starting from 1 April 2021) were eligible for vaccination. This priority was accorded in view of the fact that COVID - 19 deaths across the world demonstrate that over 85 % of all deaths occurred in the age group over 45 years; (iii) FLWs such as municipal workers (including crematorium workers) and panchayat workers were also vaccinated in phase 1 of the vaccination drive; (iv) With effect from 1 May 2021, the Liberalized Vaccination Policy was implemented as a response to repeated requests by State /UT Governments, and after detailed deliberations with domain experts. The parallel decentralized policy aims to achieve higher efficiency and reach; (v) Currently, vaccine manufacturers are obligated to supply 50% of their monthly CDL released doses to the UoI and the remaining 50% doses to the “other than GoI channel” which can be procured by State /UT Governments, private hospitals and hospitals of indust rial establishments to vaccinate persons in the age group of 18 - 44 years; (vi) The priority of the U o I remains vaccinating persons aged 45 years and above for free since they are more vulnerable. The simultaneous vaccinations for persons aged between 18 - 44 year s has been introduced to respect the wishes of the State /UT Governments. In view of the differential vulnerability and mortality rates, the Liberalized Vaccination Policy conforms to the mandate of Article s 14 and 21 of the Constitution; (vii) In order to elimin ate disparity in bargaining powers, “ the Central Government has, in consultation with the vaccine manufacturers determined the pro - rata

PART E 17 population of each State in the age group of 18 - 44 and each State will procure only that quantity ”; (viii) The Central Governme nt will notify State s /UT s , every fortnight, on the quantity of vaccines that will be distributed for vaccinating persons aged 45 years and above; (ix) With regard to the augmentation of production of vaccines, it is stated that the National Expert Group on Vacc ine Administration for COVID - 19 23 had procured 6.6 crore doses for the initial phases. Support for other vaccine candidates under clinical development is being provided by the „Mission COVID Suraksha the Indian COVID - 19 Vaccine Development Mission‟; (x) T he Central Government is in talks with several vaccine developers/manufacturers outside India and is seeking to facilitate imports. The D rugs Control ler G eneral of I ndia 24 has already approved import of 1.5 lakh doses of the Sputnik V vaccine by Dr Reddy‟s Lab oratories‟; (xi) The availability of vaccines for the next 6 months would be difficult to project as it is dynamic and contingent on foreign procurement and successful ramping of production by the two existing manufacturers; (xii) However, i t is also stated that man ufacturing capacity is being increased in the following terms: (a) SII : from 5 crore doses/month to 6.5 crore doses/month by July 2021; (b) BBIL : from 90 lakh doses/month to 2 crore doses/month, and further increase to 5.5 crore doses/month by July 2021; and (c) Sputn ik V: from 30 lakh doses to 1.2 crore doses/month by July 2021; and (xiii) The regulatory and testing process for foreign vaccines has been simplified by the NEGVAC which now allows bridging trials (a nearly 4 - month long process) of foreign vaccines to occur simu ltaneously with market development. 19 Based on the response of the U o I and the submissions made by the Amici , we understand that there are three broad issues that are of concern : (i) vaccine distribution between different age groups; (ii) vaccine procurement process; and (iii) the augmentation of the vaccine availability in India. 23 “ NEGVAC ” 24 “ DCGI ”

PART E 18 20 The affidavit of the U o I sufficiently clarifies the prioritization of the groups in phases 1 and 2 for obtaining the COVID - 19 vaccines. These include HCWs , FLWs a nd persons above the age of 45 years. The prioritization of these groups was based on the experience of India and other countries during the first wave of the pandemic in 2020. It was largely observed that these groups faced a higher risk of infection and thus, it was necessary to inoculate them free of cost and on a priority basis by the Central Government. During the vaccination for these groups, the Central Government had allowed on - site registration and there was no prior requirement for booking an appointment on CoWIN. Having said that, the vaccination policy has been substantially changed for persons between 18 - 44 years of age. The Liberalized Vaccination Policy requires some of these persons to pay for the vaccines; limited vaccines are made avail able for this category with the State /UT Governments/private hospital s and an add itional requirement of mandatory digital registration and booking an appointment through CoWIN has been imposed, among others. Unlike the prior policy, the Liberalized Vaccina tion Policy does not prioritize persons with co - morbidities and other diseases, persons with disabilities, or any other vulnerable groups. This is especially at issue because the experience of the second wave of the pandemic has provided an experiential le arning that the COVID - 19 virus is capable of mutation and now poses a threat to persons in this age group as well. Reports indicate that persons between 18 - 44 years of age have not only been infected by COVID - 19 , but have also suffered from severe effects of the infection, including prolonged hospitalization and, in unfortunate cases, death. Due to the changing nature of the pandemic, we are now faced with a situation where the 18 - 44 age group also need s to be vaccinated, although priority may be retained b etween different age groups on a scientific basis . Hence, due to the importance of vaccinating individuals in the 18 - 44 age group , the policy of the Central Government for conducting free vaccination themselves for groups under the first 2 phases, and replacing it with paid vaccination by the State /UT Governments and private hospitals for the persons between 18 - 44 years is , prima facie , arbitrary and irrational. 21 With regard to the procurement process for vaccinations which is to be followed in view of the Liberalized Vaccination Policy, there are a number of issues that need to be addressed. The Amici have indicated that many State /UT Governments and local municipal bodies have issued tenders and attempted to

PART E 19 negotiate with foreign manufacturers but the y have largely been unsuccessful , as foreign manufacturers are not inclined to negotiate with individual State /UT Governments and prefer negotiating with federal g overnments of countries. Additionally, it has been urged that Central Government is also better placed to use its monopoly as a buyer ( India being the second most populous country) to bargain for higher quantities of vaccines at reasonable prices. We find that the submissions urged by the Amici are extremely pertinent and have indicated that i n practice, the Liberalized Vaccination Policy may not be able to yield the desired results of spurring competitive prices and higher quantities of vaccines. 22 Additionally, the Liberalized Vaccination Policy seeks to remove the issue of bargaining disparit ies by stating that each State /UT would have a prefixed pro rata quota based on the ir population in the 18 - 44 age group , 50% of which will be available to the State /UT Governments and 50% to the private hospitals. The Amici have raised concerns that there is a lack of clarity regarding whether the U o I will intervene in the distribution process. Given that inter - State barriers in India are porous and persons are free to migrate and work in different parts of the country, it is essential to understand if the pro rata allotment will take into account such migration to more densely populated i ndustrial and urban States /UTs . Other concerns , such as the stage of the pandemic, the healthcare infrastructure and existing capacities of a State /UT , the literacy rate, age and overall health condition of its population, may also be relevant factors in making such a pr o rata determination. The U o I should thus specify whether it seeks to address these concerns within the vaccination policy such that the Stat e /UT Governments have a realistic assessment of the assistance they can anticipate from the U o I. 23 We shall now address the issue related to augmentation of vaccine production/availability. We have noted the submissions of the U o I in its affidavit dated 9 M ay 2021 , that it is difficult to predict the projections for vaccines given that it depends on variable factors such as introduction of new foreign vaccines, capability of increased production by existing manufacturers, among others. Mr Tushar Mehta has du ring the course of his oral submissions stated that he is in a position to address these concerns of th is Court and that the U o I aims to vaccinate approximately 100 crore persons by the end of December 2021. Mr Mehta has agreed to provide a detailed roadma p regarding projected availability of vaccines

PART E 20 from the various vaccine manufacturers. It has also been highlighted that the Central Government is in active negotiations with various private foreign manufacturers to augment the availability of vaccines in the near future. 24 In view of the above, we direct the U o I to undertake a fresh review of it s vaccination policy addressing the concerns raised . Further, we direct the U o I to provide the following clarifications:  As noted above, the U o I is directed to place on record a roadmap of projected availability of vaccin es till 31 December 2021 ;  T he preparedness with respect to specific needs of children in the event of a third wave of the pandemic in terms of medical infrastructure, vaccination trials and regul atory approval, and compatible drugs ;  Whether u nder the policy of the U o I, it is permissible for State /UT Governments or individual local bodies to access vaccine supplies of foreign manufacturers ;  The number of crematorium workers vaccinated in phase 1. A targeted drive can be conducted for vaccination of the remaining crematorium workers ;  T he State /UT Governments are diverting the vaccines ( procured by them at a higher price than Central Government) for the persons in the age group of 18 - 44 years to vaccinate persons above 45 years of age , due to a shortage of vaccines being supplied by the Central Government . T he manner in which the Central Government will factor this quantity and price differential into their subsequent allocation and disbursal of vaccines to States /UTs for the persons above 45 years of age ; and  The mechanism for redistribution , if the 25:25 quota in a particular State/UT is not picked up by the State /UT Government or the private hospital s . E.2 Effects of Va ccination by Private Hospitals under the Liberalized Vaccination Policy 25 Under the Liberalized Vaccination Policy covering persons in the age group of 18 - 44 years, the total vaccines produced will be divided in a ratio of 50:25:25 between the Central Government, State /UT Governments and private hospitals. In

PART E 21 its affidavit dated 9 May 2021, the UoI notes the following salient features of this Liberalized Vaccination P olicy , in relation to vaccination by private hospitals : (i) Out of the 50% quota allocated for the „ other than GoI channel ‟ , 50% will go to the State/UT Governments, calculated on a pro rata basis as per the population . T he balance 50% would be o pen for private hospitals‟ procurement, based on contracts with the manufacturers. As such, the State/UT Governments and private hospitals would each end up with 25% of the total CDL doses; (ii) Vaccination through the private sector of 25% of the total CDL quantity would reduce the operational stress on government facilities and help with issues of crowding at vaccination centr e s ; and (iii) Paid vaccination through private hospitals ha s been introduced for persons who can afford to pay , thereby reduc ing the operat ional stress on the G overnment. However, it has also been submitted that this policy may undergo a change based on performance and future availability of vaccines. 26 As a consequence of th is Liberalized Vaccination Policy, 50% of the population of any State/ UT in the 18 - 44 age group is expected to pay for its vaccination. From the UoI‟s affidavit, we understand that this has been done while taking into account the ability of a certain section of the population to pay for their vaccination. However, the presen t system of allowing only digital registration and booking of appointment on CoWIN, coupled with the current scarcity of vaccines, will ultimately ensure that initially all vaccines, whether free or paid, are first availed by the economically privileged se ctions of the society. As su ch, e ven those who may have been able to afford a vaccine, may opt for a free vaccine simply because of issues of availability , even if it would entail travelling to far - flung rural areas . Hence, any calculations of the economic ability of a given individual may not directly correspond to the vaccin ation route (paid/unpaid) they opt for. Consequently, it is plausible that private hospitals may have vaccine doses left over with them because everyone who could afford them has either already bought it or availed of a free vaccine, while those who need it may not have the ability to pay for it. 27 Further consequences of the vaccination by private hospitals under the Liberalized Vaccination Policy relate to a simple issue at the core of their existence:

PART E 22 that while they provide a public health service, they still remain private , for - profit entities. Consequently, they may sell the vaccine doses procured at a higher price , unless regulated stringently . Private hospitals also may no t sell all their vaccine doses publicly through appointment s on CoWIN, but rather sell them for lucrative deals directly to private corporations who wish to vaccinate their employees. Finally, private hospitals are not equally spread out across a State/UT and are often limited to bigger cities with large populations. As such, a larger quantity will be available in such cities, as opposed to the rural areas. 28 It is pertinent to clarify here that we are not opposed to the involvement of private hospitals in th e vaccination drive . Private health care institutions have an important role as well. T he UoI has correctly noted in its affidavit that these hospitals will reduce the burden on government facilities. This was also happening earlier for the vaccination of those above 45 years of age, where the Central Government was providing these hospitals with vaccines and they were allowed to charge patients a nominal fee (Rs 250). However, the issue is about the effect of privatizing 50% of all vacci nes available for the 18 - 44 age group. In view of the above concerns , we direct the UoI to provide the fol lowing clarifications :  T he manner in which Central Government will monitor the disbursal of vaccines to private hospitals, specifically those who have hospital chains pan Indi a. Further, whether (i) private hospitals are liable to disburse vaccines pro rat a the population of States /UTs ; and (ii) t he mechanism to determine if private players are genuinely administering the lifted quota in that State /UT alone . T he U o I shall place on record any written policy in relation to this .  Whether the Central Government conducted a “means - test” of the demographic of a State/UT to assert that 50% of the population in the 18 - 44 age group would be able to afford the vaccine . If not, the rationale for private hospitals being provided an equal quota for procurement as the State/UT Governments .  The manner in which the Centre and States /UTs shall ensure an equitable distribution of vaccines across sections of the society , and how this factor s into the rationale of equal apportionment between State /UT Gove rnments and private hospitals .

PART E 23  The nature of the intervention with respect to the final, end - user price that is being charged by private hospitals , e specially when a cap on procurement by the private hospitals has been set . E.3 Basis and Impact of Differential Pricing Impact of differential pricing 29 In our order dated 30 April 2021, we had elicited the UoI ‟s justification for enabling decentralized procurement where a pre - fixed and differential price was set for the Central Government, States/UTs an d p rivate h ospitals. The U o I through its affidavit dated 9 May 2021 , has submitted the following: (i) The Liberalized Vaccination Policy was introduced to incentivize existing manufacturers and invite more manufacturers , which will ensure fastest vaccination of the majority of the population. Differential pricing has been introduced in order to instill a competitive market which would drive the market towards affordability and attract offshore vaccine manufacturers; (ii) Vaccine manufacturers are mandated to transp arently declare the price in advance for procurement by State /UT Governments and p rivate h ospitals. The price for the Central Government is pre - fixed and declared; (iii) Extensive consultations with the manufacturers were held to ensure that pricing is uniform a nd reasonable. The U o I stated that these were “due to consultations and persuasion" by the Central Government; (iv) On the differential pricing of the vaccines, it is stated that “ the Central Government by nature of its large vaccination programme, places large purchase orders for vaccines as opposed to the State Governments and/or Private Hospitals and therefore, this reality has some reflection in the prices negotiated ”; and (v) In any event, all persons of all age groups will get free vaccination throughout the country since all State /UT Governments have announced free vaccination for persons aged 18 - 44 years , in addition to the Central Government vaccinating persons over 45 years for free.

PART E 24 30 The current L iberalized Vaccination P olicy enables State /UT Government s and p rivate h ospitals to procure 50% of the monthly CDL approved doses in the country at a pre - fixed price. The justification for th is P olicy has been adduced in a bid to spur competition which would attract more private manufacturers that could eventually drive down prices. P rima facie , the only room for negotiation with the two vaccine manufacturers was on price and quantity, both of which have been pre - fixed by the Central Government. This casts serious doubts on UoI‟s justification for enabling higher p rices as a competitive measure . Furthermore, the Central Government justifying its lower prices on account of its ability to place large purchase orders for vaccines , raises the issue as to why this rationale is not being employed for acquiring 100% of the monthly CDL doses . The Union Budget for Financial Year 2021 - 2022 had earmarked Rs 35000 crores for procuring vaccines 25 . In light of th e L iberalized V accination P olicy, the Central Government is directed to clarify how these funds have been spent so far and why they can no t be utilized for vaccinating persons aged 18 - 44 years. 31 In response to our questions on the poor and marginalized suffering on account of the vaccine prices, the Central Government in it s affidavit stated that the eventual beneficiary of the vaccine would not be affected by the L iberalized V accination P olicy since every State /UT has promised to vaccinate its residents free of cost. Nevertheless , it is reiterated that the UoI should consid er utilizing its position as the monopolistic buyer in the market and pass down the benefit to all persons . Even if the States /UTs were to fund the higher - priced vaccines, a burden they were not discharging before the Liberalized Vaccination P olicy was int roduced and potentially may not have planned in advance for, these funds are expen ded at the behest of the public exchequer. The Centre and States /UTs , both operate in the service of the India n population , and raise and disburse funds in their name. The additional funds expended on procuring vaccines against a deadly pandemic are necessary expenditure for any State /UT Government which has battled the public health emergency for over 15 months now. However, an avoidab le expense would eventually hurt the welfare of individuals residing within those States /UTs , who may potentially be benefitted by the differential funds being utilized for ramping up the health infrastructure in the S tate /UT, which is equally important to combat the 25 Available at < https://www.indiabudget.gov.in/doc/Budget_Speech.pdf>, page 7

PART E 25 pandemic. If the Central Government‟s unique monopolistic buyer position is the only reason for it receiving vaccines at a much lower rate from manufacturers, it is important for us to examine the rationality of the existing L iberalized Vaccina tion P olicy against Article 14 of the Constitution , since it could place severe burdens , particularly on States /UTs suffering from financial distress . Basis of pricing 32 In our order dated 30 April 2021, we had requested for data on government funding and support , direct or indirect, into the two vaccines that are currently authorized for public use – SII‟s Covishield and BBIL‟s Covaxin. Additionally, in order to evaluate the bottlenecks in vaccine scarcity, we had sought the U o I‟s stance on invoking its po wers of compulsory licensing under the Patents Act, 1970 in order to ramp up manufacturing and other statutory provisions to drive down costs. The U o I has adduced the following justifications in its affidavit dated 9 May 2021: (i) SII and BBIL have taken a fin ancial risk in developing and manufacturing these vaccines and prudence dictates pricing through a transparent and consultative negotiation , and statutory provisions must be invoked in the last resort; (ii) Covaxin is developed under a public - private partnership through a formal MoU between Indian Council of Medical Research 26 and BBIL. ICMR would receive a 5% royalty on net sales, the intellectual property is shared between ICMR and BBIL and clauses such as prioritization of in - country supplies have be en included. Phase 3 trials of Covaxin have been funded by the ICMR to the tune of R s 35 crores; (iii) Covishield is manufactured by SII. The Central Government has directly transferred R s 11 crores to 14 clinical trials sites for conducting phase 3 trials of ov er 1600 participants; and (iv) Covaxin production is being augmented with government support to the tune of R s 200 crores to one private manufacturer and 3 public sector manufacturing facilities – Bharat Biotech, Hyderabad; Indian Immunologicals, Hyderabad; Haf fkine Biopharmaceuticals, Mumbai; and Bharat Immunologicals and Biologicals, Bulandshar. This is projected to enhance 26 “ ICMR ”

PART E 26 Covaxin‟s current manufacturing of 1 crore doses/month to nearly 10 crore doses/month in the next 8 - 10 months. Grant - in - aids have been rec ommended, but the disbursements are yet to be made. 33 We commend the co - operative efforts of the UoI and the private manufacturers in developing and distributing vaccines which are critical to mitigate the pandemic. The import of our further line of question ing is to facilitate a better understand ing of the process of development and augmentation of vaccine production and its pricing for States /UTs and p rivate h ospitals. Hence, we direct that the UoI to provide the following clarifications :  Since the Central Government has financed (officially, Rs 35 crores to BBIL and Rs 11 crore to SII for phase 3 clinical trials) and facilitated the production (or augmentation of production) of these vaccines through concessions or otherwise, it may not be accurate to state that the private entities have alone borne the risk and cost of manufacture . Additionally, the Central Government would have minimized the risks of the manufacturers by granting E mergency U se A uthorization to the vaccines, which should factor into its pri cing .  The manner in which public financing is reflected in the procurement price for the Central Government, which is significantly lower than price for the State /UT Governments and private hospitals . Given that the R&D cost and IP have either been shared between the Central Government and the private manufacturer (in case of Covaxin) or the manufacturer has not invested in R&D of the vaccine (in case of Covishield), the manner in which the pricing of vaccines has been arrived at , with the Central Governmen t refusing to intervene statutorily . T he justification for intervening in pre - fixing procurement prices and quantities for States /UTs and private hospitals, but not imposing statutory price ceilings .  Comparison between the prices of vaccines being made ava ilable in India, to their prices internationally .  Whether ICMR/BBIL formally invited contracts for voluntary licensing and if so, whether they ha ve they received viable offers . T he manner in which the UoI is i ndependently trying to assist manufacturers for developing BSL3 labs which are essential for Covaxin production .

PART E 27 E.4 Vaccine Logistics 34 We have already noted that as a consequence of the Liberalized Vaccination Policy, the responsibility for the vaccination in p hase 3 is being divided between the Central Government (for those above 45 years of age, HCWs and FLWs ) and the State/UT Government along with the private hospitals (for the age group of 18 - 44 years). This would mean that the limited vaccine logistics available in a State/UT would have to be shared between the State/UT Government and the Central Government. This is different from the situation under the UIP , where the Central Government buys and allocates vaccines to States/UTs, in order to ensure that their cold storage facilities are not overwhelm ed. Hence, we direct the UoI to provide the following clarifications :  The manner in which cold storage equipment capacity is being balanced between the Central and State /UT Governments . The manner in which the States /UTs are managing the logistical burden for vaccinating persons aged between 18 - 44 years, along with persons aged over 45 years .  Whether cold storage facilities in India have increased for the COVID - 19 vaccination driv e; the present numbers, and compar ison with the numbers prior to March 2020 ;  Whether the cold storage equipment is indigenously manufactured or is imported . If it is imported, the steps which have been taken to start indigenous manufacturing .  The steps being taken to improve the cold storage management for vaccines which may require lower temperature to be stored, compared to the ones which currently have approval in India . E.5 Digital Divide 35 In our order dated 30 April 2021, we had highlighted the concerns relating to the ability of the marginalized members of society to avail of vaccination, exclusively through a digital portal in the face of a digital divide. The U o I‟s affidavit made the following submissions in relation to the accessibility of the CoWIN portal: (i) The CoWIN portal enables one person to register 4 persons using the same mobile number;

PART E 28 (ii) All gram panchayats in the country have Common Service Centres 27 which can effectively enable people residing in rural areas to register online for the vaccination; (iii) Citizens who do not have access to digital resources could take help fr om family, friends, NGOs and CSCs; (iv) Walk - ins cannot be permitted due to the scarcity of vaccines and fears of over - crowding at centres. The online registration requirement counters this fear and also effectively monitors the administration of the second dos e. The policy may be re - considered subsequently when more vaccines are available; (v) Identity proofs are required for the purpose of determining age and keeping a track of persons who are due for the second dose. However, in recognizing the issues arising wit h the insistence of one of the seven prescribed photo - ID proofs, the Central Government issued a n SoP dated 23 April 2021 which enables bulk registration of certain identifiable groups, such as homeless persons, who would be identified and registered by th e District Immunization Task Force; and (vi) It is clarified that walk - in vaccination facilities will continue for persons over the age of 45 years in separate, designated vaccination centres. This is because vaccinations have been underway for this age group f or a while and over - crowding has not been experienced so far. 36 A survey on „Household Social Consumption: Education‟ was conducted by National Statistics Office (July 2017 - June 2018) 28 which revealed the following: (i) A round 4% of the rural households and 23% of the urban households possessed a compute r. In the age group of 15 - 29 years, around 24% in rural households and 56% in urban areas were able to operate a computer ; and (ii) Nearly 24% of the households in the country had internet access during the survey year 2017 - 18. The proportion was 15% in rural households and 42% in urban households . Around 35% of persons in the age group of 15 - 29 years reported use of internet during the 30 days prior to the date of survey. The proportion s were 25% in rural areas and 58% in urban areas. 27 “ CSC ” 28 Available at <http://mospi.nic.in/sites/default/files/publication_reports/Report_585_75th_round_Education_final_15 07_0.pdf>

PART E 29 37 The Telecom Regulatory Authority of India in its report titled „Wireless Data Services in India‟ 29 noted that : (i) O ut of the total population of 1.3 billion, only 578 million people in India (less than 50%) have subscription to wireless data services. The wireless tele density in rural areas is 57.13% as compared to 155.49% in urban areas as on 31 March 2019. The report stated that: “[this] reflects the rural - urban divide in terms of telecom services‟ penetration. Since, the number of wireless data subscribers are less than 50% of the total wireless access subscribers, the number of wireless data subscribers in rural areas would be much lower”. (ii) The report also noted that in a few Indian S tates like Bihar, Uttar Pradesh and Assam the tele densit y is less than 75% ; and (iii) T he monthly income of persons living below the poverty line in urban areas and rural areas is Rs 1316 and Rs 896, respectively. However, to access internet data services, a minimum tariff plan would cost around Rs 49 , which includes 1 GB data every 28 days. This would constitute 4 - 5% of the month‟ s income of such persons accessing data. As such, t he report notes that this would bear a considerable cost for persons living below the poverty line. 38 According to the Annual Report of CSC for 2019 - 20, published by the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology, while there are 2,53,134 Gram Panchayats in India, as on 31 March 2020 only 2,40,792 Gram Panchayats are covered with at least on e registered CSC 30 . Hence, appr oximately 13,000 Gram Panchayats in India do not have a CSC. 39 It is clear from the above statistics that there exists a digital divide in India, particularly between the rural and urban areas. The extent of the advances made in improving digital literacy an d digital access falls short of penetrating the majority of the population in th e country. Serious issues of the availability of bandwidth and connectivity pose further challenges to digital penetration. A vaccination policy exclusively relying on a digita l portal for vaccinating a significant population of this 29 Available at <https://www.trai.gov.in/sites/defa ult/files/Wireless_Data_Service_Report_21082019_0.pdf> 30 Available at <https://csc.gov.in/assets/events - report/Annual - Report - 2019 - 20.pdf> , at page 8

PART E 30 country between the ages of 18 - 44 years would be unable to meet its target of universal immunization owing to such a digital divide. It is the marginalized sections of the society who would bear the brunt of this accessibility barrier. This could have serious implications on the fundamental right to equality and the right to health of persons within the above age group. In this regard , we direct that the UoI to provide the following clarifications :  I t may not be feasible to require the majority of our population to rely on friends/NGOs for digital registrations over CoWIN , when even the digitally literate are finding it hard to procure vaccination slots .  T he issue of over - crowding may also arise at CS Cs in rural areas where people would have to visit constantly in hope of a vaccine slot open ing up .  C ertain vaccination centres may be earmarked for on - site registrations for the population aged between 18 - 44 years without the existing conditions prescribe d in the circular date d 24 May 2021 , potentially with a view to prioritize those with co - morbidities/disabilities/other socio - economic vulnerabilities . Alternatively, whether specific daily quotas may be introduced for on - site registration at each centre o r specific centres .  T his policy may not allay the issue of hesitancy which may arise from approaching a State authority (such as the District Immunization Task Force) to obtain registration for the vaccination . W hether on - site registration with self - attestation of age to ensure widespread vaccination can be provided.  T he CoWIN platform and other IT applications like Aarogya Setu should be made available in regional languages . T he timeline for ensuring the availability of the platform in multiple regional languages .  Conducting a disability audit for the CoWIN website and other IT application like Aarogya Setu to ensure that they are accessible to persons with disabilities . 40 I t has been brought to our notice that the CoW IN platform is not accessible to persons with visual disabilities. The website suffers from certain accessibility barriers which should be addressed. These include: (i) A udio or text captcha is not available;

PART F 31 (ii) The seven filters, which inter alia , include age group, name of vaccine and whether the vaccine is paid or free , are not designed accessibly. This issue can be addressed by creation of a drop - down list; (iii) While visually challenged persons can determine the number of available vacci ne slots, one cannot find out the day those slots correspond to. This can be resolved by ensuring that table headers correspond to associated cells; (iv) Keyboard support for navigating the website is absent; (v) Adequate time should be given to disabled users to schedule their appointment without the possibility of being automatically logged off; and (vi) Accessibility protocols, such as use of appropriate colour contrasts , should be adhered to. F Conclusion 41 We direct the UoI to file an affidavit, whi ch shall address the issues and questions raised in Section E, wherein it shall ensure that each issue is responded to individually and no issue is missed out. W e also direct that the affidavit should provide the following information:  The data on the percentage of population that has been vaccinated (with one dose and both doses), as against eligible persons in the first three phases of the vaccination drive . This shall include data pertaining to the percentage of rural population as well as the percentage of urb an population so vaccinated ;  The complete data on the Central Government‟s purchase history of all the COVID - 19 vaccines till date (Covaxin, Covishield and Sputnik V). The data should clarify: (a) the dates of all procurement orders placed by the Central Government for all 3 vaccines; (b) the quantity of vaccines ordered as on each date; and (c) the projected date of supply; and  An outline for how and when the Central Government seeks to vaccinate the remaining population in phases 1, 2 and 3.  The steps b eing taken by the Central Government to ensure drug availability for mucormycosis. 42 W hile filing it s affidavit, UoI shall also ensure that copies of all the relevant documents and file notings reflecting it s thinking and culminating in the vaccination

PART F 32 pol icy are also annexed on the vaccination policy. Hence, w e direct the UoI to file its affidavit within 2 weeks. 43 We also note that UoI‟s stated position in its affidavit dated 9 May 2021 is that every State/UT Government shall provide vaccination free of co st to its population. It is important that individual State/UT Governments confirm/deny this position before this Court. Further, if they have decided to vaccinate their population for free then, a s a matter of principle, it is important that this policy is annexed to their affidavit, so that the population within their territories can be assured of their right to be vaccinated for free at a S tate vaccination centre. Hence, we direct each of the State/UT Governments to also file an affidavit within 2 weeks , where they shall clarify their position and put on record their individual policies. ……….….....................................................J. [Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud] ……..….….....................................................J. [L Nageswara Rao] ……..….….....................................................J. [S Ravindra Bhat] New Delhi; May 3 1, 2021

1 ITEM NO.301 Court 5 (Video Conferencing) SECTION PIL-W S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS SUO MOTO WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No.3/2021 IN RE : DISTRIBUTION OF ESSENTIAL SUPPLIES AND SERVICES DURING PANDEMIC (With appln.(s) for EXEMPTION FROM FILING ORIGINAL VAKALATNAMA/OTHER DOCUMENT, APPROPRIATE ORDERS/DIRECTIONS, CLARIFICATION/DIRECTION, EARLY HEARING APPLICATION, EXEMPTION FROM FILING AFFIDAVIT, EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T., INTERVENTION APPLICATION, INTERVENTION/IMPLEADMENT, PERMISSION TO APPEAR AND ARGUE IN PERSON and PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES and I.A. NO. 61775/2021 - APPLICATION FOR DIRECTIONS IS ARISING OUT OF LETTER PETITION DATED 7.5.2021 OF MR. MANAN KUMAR MISHRA, SENIOR ADVOCATE AND CHAIRMAN, BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA) Date : 31-05-2021 This matter was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE D.Y. CHANDRACHUD HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. NAGESWARA RAO HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT Mr. Jaideep Gupta, Sr. Adv. (A.C.) Mr. Kunal Chatterjee, Adv. Ms. Meenakshi Arora, Sr. Adv. (A.C.) Mr. Mohit D. Ram, Adv. For Petitioner(s) By Courts Motion, For Respondent(s) Mr. Tushar Mehta, SG Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, ASG

2 Mr. K.M. Nataraj, ASG Mr. Rajat Nair, Adv. Mr. Kanu Agrawal, Adv. Mr. Digvijay Dam, Adv. Mr. Amit Sharma, Adv. Mr. B.V. Balaram Das, Adv. Mr. Gurmeet Singh Makker, Adv. Mr. Amit Mahajan, Adv. Mr. Prashant Singh, Adv. Mr. Raj Bahadur Yadav, Adv. Mr. Tushar Mehta, SG Mr. Maninder Singh, ASG Ms. Manish Lavkumar, Sr. Adv. Mr. A.P. Mayee, Adv. Mr. Anand Grover, Sr. Adv. Ms. Rajeshwari Hariharan, Adv. Mr. R. Sathyanarayanan, Adv. Ms. Nupur Kumar, Adv. Ms. Mantika Haryani, Adv. Ms. Astha Sharma, AOR Ms. Indira Jaising, Sr. Adv. Mr. Nipun Saxena, Adv. Mr. Paras Nath Singh, Adv. Mr. Umang Tyagi, Adv. Ms. Serena Sharma, Adv. Ms. Mantika Haryani, Adv. Ms. Astha Sharma, AOR Mr. Adit S. Pujari, Adv. Ms. Kajal Dalal, Adv. Ms. Mantika Haryani, Adv. Mr. Simranjeet Singh Rekhi, Adv. Ms. Astha Sharma, AOR Mr. Sridhar Potaraju, Adv. Ms. Petal Chandhok, Adv. Mr. Gaichangpou Gangmei, Adv. M/s. Trust Legal Mr. Amit Kumar, Sr. Adv., Adv. Gen., Meghalaya Mr. Avijit Mani Tripathi, AOR Mr. Shaurya Sahay, Adv.

3 Ms. Rekha Bakshi, Adv. Mr. Prashant Bhushan, AOR Ms. Cheryl D’souza, Adv. Mr. Deepak Masih, Adv. Ms. Manreet Kaur, Adv. Mr. R.N. Keswani, AOR Mr. Sidharth Luthra, Sr. Adv. Mrs. Ketaki Goswami, Adv. Mr. Nitin Saluja, AOR Mr. Ayush Kaushik, Adv. Mr. Anjag Gautam, Adv. Mr. Mahfooz Ahsan Nazki, AOR Mr. Polanki Gowtham, Adv. Mr. Shaik Mohamad Haneef, Adv. Mr. T. Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy, Adv. Mr. Amitabh Sinha, Adv. Mr. K.V. Girish Chowdary, Adv. Mr. Shrey Sharma, Adv. Mr. S.K. Rungta, Sr. Adv. Mr. Sumit Pragal, Adv. Ms. Amita Singh Kalkal, AOR Mr. Vishnu Shankar Jain, AOR Ms. Manju Jetley, AOR Ms. Shobha Gupta, AOR Ms. Medha Garg, Adv. Ms. Prachi Mishra, AAG Mr. Sumeer Sodhi, AOR Ms. Simran Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Chaitanya, Adv. Mr. Anilendra Pandey, AOR Ms. Suchita Dixit, Adv. Mr. Sandeep, Adv. Mr. Manish Kumar, AOR

4 Mr. Rajiv Rangan, Adv. Gen. Mr. Arunabh Chowdhury, AAG Mr. Krishnaraj Thaker, AAG Ms. Pragya Baghel, Adv. Mr. Kumar Anurag Singh, Adv. Ms. Pallavi Langar, AOR Dr. Maneka Guruswamy, Sr. Adv. Mr. Govind Manoharan, Adv. Mr. Ibad Mushtaq, Adv. Ms. Aishwarya Murali, Adv. Mr. Victor Das, Adv. Ms. Ambika Mathur, Adv. Mrs. Shally Bhasin, AOR Ms. Charu Ambwani, AOR Mr. Yatin Oza, Sr. Adv. Mr. Purvish Jitendra Malkan, AOR Mr. Rasesh Parikh, Adv. Mr. Masoom Shah, Adv. Ms. Dharita Purvish Malkan, Adv. Ms. Deepa Gorasia, Adv. Mr. Alok Kumar, Adv. Ms. Neha Ambashtha, Adv. Ms. Nandini Chhabra, Adv. Ms. Bhavna Sarkar, Adv. Mr. J. Sai Deepak, Adv. Mr. Guruswamy Nataraj, Adv. Ms. Pooja Dhar, Adv. Mr. V. Shyamohan, Adv. Mr. Surya Prakash, Adv. M/s. Kmnp Law Mr. Amarjit Singh Bedi, AOR Mr. Raj Bahadur Yadav, AOR Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Sr. Adv. Mr. Mahendra Singh Singhvi, Adv. Gen. Mr. Amit Bhandari, Adv. Mr. Sandeep Kumar Jha, AOR

5 Mr. Anand Grover, Sr. Adv. Mr. Abhay Nevagi, Adv. Mr. Amit Singh, Adv. Mr. Dhiraj Abraham Philip, AOR Mr. Pukhrambam Ramesh Kumar, AOR Ms. Anupama Ngangom, Adv. Mr. Karun Sharma, Adv. Mr. Bikash Ranjan Bhattacharya, Sr. Adv. Ms. Anindita Mitra, AOR Mr. Samim Ahammed, Adv. Ms. Supratik Sarkar, Adv. Mr. Arnab Sinha, Adv. Ms. Sayanti Sengupta, Adv. Mr. Jamir Khan, Adv. Mr. P.S. Patwalia, Sr. Adv. Mr. Ashok Sharma, Adv. Gen. Mr. Manish Kumar, Adv. Mr. S.P.M. Tripathi, Adv. Ms. Swagoti Batchas, Adv. Mr. Satish Kumar, AOR Mr. Atul Nanda, Adv. Gen. Mr. Manish Tewari, Sr. Adv. Mr. Karan Bharihoke, AOR Ms. Neha Sahai Bharihoke, Adv. Mr. Yajur Bhalla, Adv. Mr. Deepak Samota, Adv. Mr. Rohit Kumar Pihal, Adv. Mr. Ashish Vajpayee, Adv. Mr. Siddharth Srivastava, Adv. Mr. Shubham Bhalla, AOR Mr. Maninder Singh, Sr. Adv. Mr. Purushendra Kaurav, Sr. Adv., Adv. Gen. Mr. Pashupathi Nath Razdan, AOR Mr. Palav Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Sudhanshu Kaushesh, Adv. Mr. K.P. Jayaram, Adv. Mr. Astik Gupta, Adv. Ms. Maitrayee Jagat Joshi, Adv.

6 Mr. Arjun Garg, AOR Mr. Aakash Nandolia, Adv. Ms. Shrutika Garg, Adv. Mr. Sunny Choudhary, AOR Mr. Pradeep Kumar Yadav, Adv. Mr. Abhay Singh, Adv. Ms. Shikha Yadav, Adv. Mr. Shreekant Verma, Adv. Mr. Virender Kumar Mumwalia, Adv. Mr. Sanjeev Malhotra, AOR Mr. C.S. Vaidyanathan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Ramesh Babu M. R., AOR Mr. Abhay Panday, Adv. Ms. Manisha Singh, Adv. Mr. Varun Singh, Adv. Mr. K.V. Jagdishvaran, Adv. Ms. G. Indira, AOR Mr. Saurabh Kansal, Adv. Mr. Vikas Jain, AOR Mr. Aviral Saxena, Adv. Mr. Ashu Choudhary, Adv. Mr. Shantanu Kumar, Adv. Mohd. Azhar, Adv. Mr. Manjeet Rathor, Adv. Ms. Ruchira Gupta, Adv. Mr. Shishir Deshpande, AOR Mr. Anurag Sharma, Adv. Mr. Himanshu Chaubey, AOR Mr. Shuvodeep Roy, AOR Ms. Diksha Rai, Adv. Ms. Ninmisha Menon, Adv. Mr. Rahul Mehra, Sr. Adv. Mr. Gautam Narayan, AOR Mr. Satyakam, Adv. Ms. Asmita Singh, Adv. Mr. Adithya Nair, Adv.

7 Mr. Avinash B. Amarnath, AOR Mr. G.M. Kawoosa, Adv. Ms. Taruna Ardhendumauli Prasad, AOR Mr. Parth Awasthi, Adv. Mr. Salman Khurshid, Sr. Adv. Ms. Lubna Naaz, AOR Ms. Kunika, Adv. Mr. Zafar Khurshid, Adv. Mr. Akhand Pratap Singh Chauhan, Adv. Mr. Tungesh, AOR Ms. Nupur Kumar, AOR Mr. Chirag M. Shroff, AOR Mr. Tarun Gulati, Sr. Adv. Ms. Disha Jham, Adv. Ms. B. Vijayalakshmi Menon, AOR Mr. Sachit Jolly, In-person Mr. Devashish Bharuka, AOR Mr. Rajiv Shankar Dvivedi, Adv. Mr. Niraj Kumar, Adv. Mrs. Jaya Bharuka, Adv. Mr. Ravi Bharuka, Adv. Ms. Sarvshree, Adv. Mr. Justine George, Adv. Ms. Srishti Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Ankit Agarwal, Adv. Ms. Taniya Bansal, Adv. Mr. Rohit Anil Rathi, AOR Mr. Balaji Srinivasan, AOR Ms. Garima Jain, Adv. Ms. Pallavi Sengupta, Adv. Ms. Lakshmi Rao, Adv. Mr. Aishwarya Choudhary, Adv. Ms. Aakriti Priya, Adv. Mr. Mohammed Sharukh, Adv. Mr. Prateek Yadav, Adv.

8 Mr. Devasish Garg, Applicant-in-Person Mr. Parvesh Sahib Singh Verma, Applicant-in-Person Mr. Aishwarya Bhati, ASG Mr. Ankit Goel, AOR Mr. Ashok Parija, Adv. Gen., Odisha Mr. Shibashish Misra, AOR Mr. Deepak Prakash, AOR Mr. Manoj V. George, Adv. Ms. Shilpa Liza George, AOR Panmei, Adv. Mr. Amit Kumar, Adv. Mr. Sriram P., AOR Ms. Pallavi Pratap, AOR Mr. Anil Grover, Sr. AAG Ms. Bansuri Swaraj, AAG Dr. Monika Gusain, AOR Mr. Vikas Singh, Sr. Adv. Mr. Suhaan Mukerji, Adv. Mr. Vishal Prasad, Adv. Ms. Deepeika Kalia, Adv. Mr. Nikhil Parikshith, Adv. Mr. Abhishek Manchanda, Adv. Mr. Kapish Seth, Adv. Mr. Mrityunjai Singh, Adv. Mr. Savandeep Pahari, Adv. M/s. PLR Chambers & Co. Mr. Annam D. N. Rao, AOR Dr. A.P. Singh, Adv. Mr. Sadashiv, AOR Mr. V.P. Singh, Adv. Ms. Geeta Chauhan, Adv. Ms. Richa Singh, Adv. Mr. Sharwan Kumar Goyal, Adv. Mr. Jai Gopal Saboo, Adv.

9 Mr. Sanat Kumar, Sr. Adv., Dy. Adv. Gen. Mr. Jaswant Singh Rawat, AOR Mr. Vikas Singh, Sr. Adv. Mr. Pradeep Kumar Rai, Sr. Adv. Ms. Mahalakshmi Pavani, Sr. Adv. Mr. Arijit Prasad, Sr. Adv. Mr. Brijender Chahar, Sr. Adv. Ms. Sonia Mathur, Sr. Adv. Mr. Vikas Pahwa, Sr. Adv. Mr. Meenesh Dubey, Adv. Ms. Ritu Bhardwaj, Adv. Mr. Anupam Mishra, Adv. Ms. Nina Gupta, Adv Ms. K.V. Bharathi Upadhyaya, Adv. Mr. Mukesh Kumar Singh, Adv. Ms. Sasmita Tripathy, Adv. Mr. Prashant Singh, Adv. Ms. Prerna Kumari, Adv. Ms. Seema Patnaha, Adv. Ms. Nandini Gupta, Adv. Mr. Rahul Kaushik, Adv. Mr. Vivek Kolhi, Adv. Gen. Sikkim Mr. Sameer Abhyankar, Adv. Mr. S. Udaya Kumar Sagar, Adv. Ms. Sweena Nair, Adv. Mr. Abhimanyu Tewari, Adv. Ms. Eliza Bar, Adv. Mr. K.M. Nataraj, ASG Mr. V.N. Raghupathy, Adv. Mr. Sharath Nambiar, Adv. Mr. P. Venkat Reddy, Adv. Mr. Prashant Tyagi, Adv. Mr. P. Srinivas Reddy, Adv. M/s. Venkat Palwai Law Associates Mrs. K. Enatoli Sema, Adv. Mr. Amit Kumar Singh, Adv. Mr. Apratim Animesh Thakur, Adv. Ms. Prachi Hasija, Adv.

10 Mr. Siddhesh Kotwal, Adv. Ms. Manya Hasija, Adv. Ms. Ana Upadhyay, Adv. Mr. Nirnimesh Dubey, Adv. Mr. Ajay Bansal, AAG, Haryana Mr. Gaurav Yadava, Adv. Ms. Veena Bansal, Adv. Mr. Sushil Kumar Anand, Adv. Mr. Sanjay Kumar Visen, Adv. Dr. Ashwani Kumar, Sr. Adv. Ms. Raushan Tara Jaswal, Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R 1 In terms of the signed reportable order, we pass the following directions: (i) We direct the UoI to file an affidavit, which shall address the issues and questions raised in Section E, wherein it shall ensure that each issue is responded to individually and no issue is missed out. We also direct that the affidavit should provide the following information:  The data on the percentage of population that has been vaccinated (with one dose and both doses), as against eligible persons in the first three phases of the vaccination drive. This shall include data pertaining to the percentage of rural population as well as the percentage of urban population so vaccinated;  The complete data on the Central Government’s purchase history of all the COVID-19 vaccines till date (Covaxin, Covishield and Sputnik V). The data should clarify: (a) the dates of all procurement orders placed by the Central Government for all 3 vaccines; (b) the quantity of vaccines ordered as on each date; and (c) the projected date of supply; and

11  An outline for how and when the Central Government seeks to vaccinate the remaining population in phases 1, 2 and 3.  The steps being taken by the Central Government to ensure drug availability for mucormycosis. (ii) While filing its affidavit, UoI shall also ensure that copies of all the relevant documents and file notings reflecting it’s thinking and culminating in the vaccination policy are also annexed on the vaccination policy. Hence, we direct the UoI to file its affidavit within 2 weeks. (iii) We also note that UoI’s stated position in its affidavit dated 9 May 2021 is that every State/UT Government shall provide vaccination free of cost to its population. It is important that individual State/UT Governments confirm/deny this position before this Court. Further, if they have decided to vaccinate their population for free then, as a matter of principle, it is important that this policy is annexed to their affidavit, so that the population within their territories can be assured of their right to be vaccinated for free at a State vaccination centre. Hence, we direct each of the State/UT Governments to also file an affidavit within 2 weeks, where they shall clarify their position and put on record their individual policies. 2 List the Petition on 30 June 2021. (CHETAN KUMAR) (SAROJ KUMARI GAUR) A.R.-cum-P.S. BRANCH OFFICER (Signed Reportable Order is placed on the file)

ITEM NO.311 Court 5 (Video Conferencing) SECTION PIL-W S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Writ Petition (Civil) No.504/2021 SHIVSHANKER KISANRAO SHETKAR Petitioner(s) VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Respondent(s) Date : 31-05-2021 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE D.Y. CHANDRACHUD HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. NAGESWARA RAO HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT For Petitioner(s) Mr. Arvind Swant, Adv. Mr. Prashant Patil, Adv. Mr. Pranav Patil, Adv. Mr. Harisha S.R., AOR For Respondent(s) Mr. Tushar Mehta, SG Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, ASG Mr. K.M. Nataraj, ASG Mr. Gurmeet Singh Makker, Adv. Mr. Rajat Nair, Adv. Mr. Kanu Agrawal, Adv. Mr. Amit Mahajan, Adv. Mr. Amit Sharma, Adv. Mr. Digvijay Dam, Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R 1 Tag with SMW (C) No 3 of 2021. (CHETAN KUMAR) (SAROJ KUMARI GAUR) A.R.-cum-P.S. BRANCH OFFICER

ITEM NO.312 Court 5 (Video Conferencing) SECTION PIL-W S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Writ Petition (Civil) No.497/2021 KARAN KOHLI & ANR. Petitioner(s) VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Respondent(s) (FOR ADMISSION and IA No.58348/2021-GRANT OF INTERIM RELIEF and IA No.58349/2021-EXEMPTION FROM FILING AFFIDAVIT) Date : 31-05-2021 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE D.Y. CHANDRACHUD HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. NAGESWARA RAO HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT For Petitioner(s) Ms. Prerna Priyadarshini, AOR Mr. Kush Chaturvedi, Adv. Ms. Priyashree Sharma Ph, Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. Tushar Mehta, SG Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, ASG Mr. K.M. Nataraj, ASG Mr. Gurmeet Singh Makker, Adv. Mr. Rajat Nair, Adv. Mr. Kanu Agrawal, Adv. Mr. Amit Mahajan, Adv. Mr. Amit Sharma, Adv. Mr. Digvijay Dam, Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R 1 Tag with SMW (C) No 3 of 2021. (CHETAN KUMAR) (SAROJ KUMARI GAUR) A.R.-cum-P.S. BRANCH OFFICER

ITEM NO.313 Court 5 (Video Conferencing) SECTION PIL-W S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Writ Petition (Civil) No.505/2021 AMULYA NIDHI Petitioner(s) VERSUS UNION OF INDIA Respondent(s) (With appln.(s) for IA No.58873/2021-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. and IA No.58874/2021-EXEMPTION FROM FILING AFFIDAVIT ) Date : 31-05-2021 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE D.Y. CHANDRACHUD HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. NAGESWARA RAO HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT For Petitioner(s) Mr. Abhimanue Shrestha, AOR For Respondent(s) Mr. Tushar Mehta, SG Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, ASG Mr. K.M. Nataraj, ASG Mr. Gurmeet Singh Makker, Adv. Mr. Rajat Nair, Adv. Mr. Kanu Agrawal, Adv. Mr. Amit Mahajan, Adv. Mr. Amit Sharma, Adv. Mr. Digvijay Dam, Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R 1 Tag with SMW (C) No 3 of 2021. (CHETAN KUMAR) (SAROJ KUMARI GAUR) A.R.-cum-P.S. BRANCH OFFICER

ITEM NO.314 Court 5 (Video Conferencing) SECTION PIL-W S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Writ Petition (Civil) No.506/2021 R SUBRAMANIAN Petitioner(s) VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Respondent(s) (With appln.(s) for IA No.58925/2021-EXEMPTION FROM FILING AFFIDAVIT and IA No.58924/2021-PERMISSION TO APPEAR AND ARGUE IN PERSON) Date : 31-05-2021 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE D.Y. CHANDRACHUD HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. NAGESWARA RAO HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT For Petitioner(s) Petitioner-in-person For Respondent(s) Mr. Tushar Mehta, SG Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, ASG Mr. K.M. Nataraj, ASG Mr. Gurmeet Singh Makker, Adv. Mr. Rajat Nair, Adv. Mr. Kanu Agrawal, Adv. Mr. Amit Mahajan, Adv. Mr. Amit Sharma, Adv. Mr. Digvijay Dam, Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R 1 Tag with SMW (C) No 3 of 2021. (CHETAN KUMAR) (SAROJ KUMARI GAUR) A.R.-cum-P.S. BRANCH OFFICER

ITEM NO.315 Court 5 (Video Conferencing) SECTION PIL-W S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Writ Petition(s)(Civil) No(s).515/2021 CHIRUMAMILLA KRANTHI KUMAR Petitioner(s) VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Respondent(s) Date : 31-05-2021 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE D.Y. CHANDRACHUD HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. NAGESWARA RAO HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT For Petitioner(s) Mr. V. Elanchezhiyan, AOR For Respondent(s) Mr. Tushar Mehta, SG Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, ASG Mr. K.M. Nataraj, ASG Mr. Gurmeet Singh Makker, Adv. Mr. Rajat Nair, Adv. Mr. Kanu Agrawal, Adv. Mr. Amit Mahajan, Adv. Mr. Amit Sharma, Adv. Mr. Digvijay Dam, Adv. Mr. B.V. Balaram Das, Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Tag with SMW (C) No 3 of 2021. (SANJAY KUMAR-I) (SAROJ KUMARI GAUR) AR-CUM-PS COURT MASTER

ITEM NO.316 Court 5 (Video Conferencing) SECTION PIL-W S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Writ Petition(s)(Civil) No(s).509/2021 VIPLAV SHARMA Petitioner(s) VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Respondent(s) (WITH IA No.59106/2021-EXEMPTION FROM FILING AFFIDAVIT and IA No.59104/2021-PERMISSION TO APPEAR AND ARGUE IN PERSON and IA No.59107/2021-APPROPRIATE ORDERS/DIRECTIONS) Date : 31-05-2021 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE D.Y. CHANDRACHUD HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. NAGESWARA RAO HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT For Petitioner(s) Petitioner-in-person For Respondent(s) Mr. Tushar Mehta, SG Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, ASG Mr. K.M. Nataraj, ASG Mr. Gurmeet Singh Makker, Adv. Mr. Rajat Nair, Adv. Mr. Kanu Agrawal, Adv. Mr. Amit Mahajan, Adv. Mr. Amit Sharma, Adv. Mr. Digvijay Dam, Adv. Mr. B.V. Balaram Das, Adv. Mr. Chirag M. Shroff, Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Tag with SMW (C) No 3 of 2021. (SANJAY KUMAR-I) (SAROJ KUMARI GAUR) AR-CUM-PS COURT MASTER

ITEM NO.317 Court 5 (Video Conferencing) SECTION PIL-W S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Writ Petition(s)(Civil) No(s).516/2021 DR. RAVINDRA CHINGALE Petitioner(s) VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Respondent(s) (WITH IA No.59453/2021-EXEMPTION FROM FILING AFFIDAVIT and IA No.59452/2021-PERMISSION TO APPEAR AND ARGUE IN PERSON ) Date : 31-05-2021 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE D.Y. CHANDRACHUD HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. NAGESWARA RAO HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT For Petitioner(s) Petitioner-in-person For Respondent(s) Mr. Tushar Mehta, SG Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, ASG Mr. K.M. Nataraj, ASG Mr. Gurmeet Singh Makker, Adv. Mr. Rajat Nair, Adv. Mr. Kanu Agrawal, Adv. Mr. Amit Mahajan, Adv. Mr. Amit Sharma, Adv. Mr. Digvijay Dam, Adv. Mr. B.V. Balaram Das, Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Tag with SMW (C) No 3 of 2021. (SANJAY KUMAR-I) (SAROJ KUMARI GAUR) AR-CUM-PS COURT MASTER

ITEM NO.319 Court 5 (Video Conferencing) SECTION IX S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) Diary No(s).11458/2021 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 29-04-2021 in PIL No. 10736/2021 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay) FAYZAN KHAN & ORS. Petitioner(s) VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. Respondent(s) (WITH I.R. and IA No.60039/2021-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT and IA No.60038/2021-PERMISSION TO FILE SLP WITHOUT CERTIFIED/PLAIN COPY OF IMPUGNED ORDER) Date : 31-05-2021 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE D.Y. CHANDRACHUD HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. NAGESWARA RAO HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT For Petitioner(s) Mr. Vivek Shukla, Adv. Mr. Ashutosh Ghade, AOR For Respondent(s) Mr. Tushar Mehta, SG Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, ASG Mr. K.M. Nataraj, ASG Mr. Gurmeet Singh Makker, Adv. Mr. Rajat Nair, Adv. Mr. Kanu Agrawal, Adv. Mr. Amit Mahajan, Adv. Mr. Amit Sharma, Adv. Mr. Digvijay Dam, Adv. Mr. B.V. Balaram Das, Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Tag with SMW (C) No 3 of 2021. (SANJAY KUMAR-I) (SAROJ KUMARI GAUR) AR-CUM-PS COURT MASTER

ITEM NO.320 Court 5 (Video Conferencing) SECTION PIL-W S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Writ Petition(s)(Civil) No(s).525/2021 MANU GAUR Petitioner(s) VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Respondent(s) (WITH IA No.60712/2021-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. and IA No.60713/2021-EXEMPTION FROM FILING AFFIDAVIT) Date : 31-05-2021 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE D.Y. CHANDRACHUD HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. NAGESWARA RAO HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT For Petitioner(s) Mr. Vikas Singh, Sr. Adv. Mr. Piyush Hans, Adv. Mr. Ravi Panwar, AOR Ms. Deepeika Kalia, Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. Tushar Mehta, SG Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, ASG Mr. K.M. Nataraj, ASG Mr. Gurmeet Singh Makker, Adv. Mr. Rajat Nair, Adv. Mr. Kanu Agrawal, Adv. Mr. Amit Mahajan, Adv. Mr. Amit Sharma, Adv. Mr. Digvijay Dam, Adv. Mr. B.V. Balaram Das, Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Tag with SMW (C) No 3 of 2021. (SANJAY KUMAR-I) (SAROJ KUMARI GAUR) AR-CUM-PS COURT MASTER

Revised ITEM NO.321 Court 5 (Video Conferencing) SECTION IX S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s).6800/2021 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 02-05-2021 in SMPIL No. 4/2020 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay at Nagpur) THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. Petitioner(s) VERSUS HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,NAGPUR BENCH & ORS. Respondent(s) (WITH I.R. and IA No.60458/2021-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT and IA No.60459/2021-EXEMPTION FROM FILING AFFIDAVIT) Date : 31-05-2021 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE D.Y. CHANDRACHUD HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. NAGESWARA RAO HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT For Petitioner(s) Mr. Kapil Sibal, Sr. Adv. Mr. Rahul Chitnis, Adv. Mr. Sachin Patil, AOR Mr. Aaditya A. Pande, Adv. Mr. Geo Joseph, Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. Tushar Mehta, SG Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, ASG Mr. K.M. Nataraj, ASG Mr. Gurmeet Singh Makker, Adv. Mr. Rajat Nair, Adv. Mr. Kanu Agrawal, Adv. Mr. Amit Mahajan, Adv. Mr. Amit Sharma, Adv. Mr. Digvijay Dam, Adv. Mr. B.V. Balaram Das, Adv. Mr. A P Mayee, AOR UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Tag with SMW (C) No 3 of 2021. (SANJAY KUMAR-I) (SAROJ KUMARI GAUR) AR-CUM-PS COURT MASTER

ITEM NO.321 Court 5 (Video Conferencing) SECTION IX S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s).6800/2021 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 02-05-2021 in SMPIL No. 4/2020 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay at Nagpur) THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. Petitioner(s) VERSUS HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,NAGPUR BENCH & ORS. Respondent(s) (WITH I.R. and IA No.60458/2021-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT and IA No.60459/2021-EXEMPTION FROM FILING AFFIDAVIT) Date : 31-05-2021 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE D.Y. CHANDRACHUD HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. NAGESWARA RAO HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT For Petitioner(s) Mr. Sachin Patil, AOR For Respondent(s) Mr. Tushar Mehta, SG Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, ASG Mr. K.M. Nataraj, ASG Mr. Gurmeet Singh Makker, Adv. Mr. Rajat Nair, Adv. Mr. Kanu Agrawal, Adv. Mr. Amit Mahajan, Adv. Mr. Amit Sharma, Adv. Mr. Digvijay Dam, Adv. Mr. B.V. Balaram Das, Adv. Mr. A P Mayee, AOR UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Tag with SMW (C) No 3 of 2021. (SANJAY KUMAR-I) (SAROJ KUMARI GAUR) AR-CUM-PS COURT MASTER

ITEM NO.322 Court 5 (Video Conferencing) SECTION X S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Writ Petition(s)(Civil) No(s).561/2021 CRYSTAL HOSPITAL LTD & ANR. Petitioner(s) VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. Respondent(s) (WITH IA No.62740/2021-EX-PARTE AD-INTERIM RELIEF and IA No.62741/2021-APPLICATION FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING ORIGINAL VAKALATNAMA/OTHER DOCUMENT) Date : 31-05-2021 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE D.Y. CHANDRACHUD HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. NAGESWARA RAO HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT For Petitioner(s) Mr. Mathews J Nedumpara, Adv. Ms. Manju Jetley, AOR For Respondent(s) UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Tag with SMW (C) No 3 of 2021. (SANJAY KUMAR-I) (SAROJ KUMARI GAUR) AR-CUM-PS COURT MASTER

ITEM NO.324 Court 5 (Video Conferencing) SECTION PIL-W S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Writ Petition(s)(Criminal) No(s).214/2021 NAND LAL & ANR. Petitioner(s) VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Respondent(s) (WITH IA No.62490/2021-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. and IA No.62492/2021-EXEMPTION FROM FILING AFFIDAVIT and IA No.62489/2021- CLARIFICATION/DIRECTION) Date : 31-05-2021 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE D.Y. CHANDRACHUD HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. NAGESWARA RAO HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT For Petitioner(s) Mr. Vivek Tankha, Sr. Adv. Mr. Shashankn Shekhar, Adv . Mr. Sumeer Sodhi, AOR Mr. Varun Tankha, Adv . Mr. Aditya Triguna, Adv. Mr. Samresh Katare, Adv . Ms. Ridhima Junejal, Adv . For Respondent(s) UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Tag with SMW (C) No 3 of 2021. (SANJAY KUMAR-I) (SAROJ KUMARI GAUR) AR-CUM-PS COURT MASTER

ITEM NO.323 Court 5 (Video Conferencing) SECTION PIL-W S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Writ Petition(s)(Civil) No(s).565/2021 PAWAN KUMAR Petitioner(s) VERSUS THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS. Respondent(s) (WITH IA No.62860/2021-STAY APPLICATION and IA No.62861/2021- EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. and IA No.62862/2021-APPLICATION FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING ORIGINAL VAKALATNAMA/OTHER DOCUMENT) Date : 31-05-2021 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE D.Y. CHANDRACHUD HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. NAGESWARA RAO HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT For Petitioner(s) Mr. Vanshdeep Dalmia, AOR For Respondent(s) UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Tag with SMW (C) No 3 of 2021. (SANJAY KUMAR-I) (SAROJ KUMARI GAUR) AR-CUM-PS COURT MASTER

ITEM NO.326 Court 5 (Video Conferencing) SECTION II-A S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) Diary No(s).12403/2021 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 06-05-2021 in SMCRA No. 1/2021 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay at Nagpur) PALLAVI MAROTI MESHRAM & ANR. Petitioner(s) VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. Respondent(s) (WITH IA No.63502/2021-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT and IA No.63503/2021-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. and IA No.63501/2021-PERMISSION TO FILE SLP) Date : 31-05-2021 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE D.Y. CHANDRACHUD HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. NAGESWARA RAO HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT For Petitioner(s) Mr. Wasi Haider, AOR For Respondent(s) UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Tag with SMW (C) No 3 of 2021. (SANJAY KUMAR-I) (SAROJ KUMARI GAUR) AR-CUM-PS COURT MASTER

1 ITEM NO.35 Court 5 (Video Conferencing) SECTION XIV S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) Diary No(s).11622/2021 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 01 - 05 - 2021 in WP(C) No. 3031/2020 and 04 - 05 - 2021 in WP(C) No. 3031/2020 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi) UNION OF INDIA Petitioner(s) VERSUS RAKESH MALHOTRA & ANR. Respondent(s) Date : 06 - 05 - 2021 Th ese petition s were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE D.Y. CHANDRACHUD HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.R. SHAH Mr. Jaideep Gupta, Sr. Adv. (A.C.) Ms. Meenakshi Arora, Sr. Adv. (A.C.) Mr. Mohit D Ram, AOR Mr. Kunal Chatterji, AOR For Petitioner(s) Mr. Tushar Mehta, SG Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, ASG Mr. Rajat Nair, Adv. Mr. Kanu Agrawal, Adv. Mr. Amit Mahajan, Adv. Mr. Prashant Singh B, Adv. Mr. Raj Bahadur Yadav, AOR Mr. Gurmeet Singh Makkar, AOR Mr. B. V. Balaram Das, AOR For Respondent(s) Mr. Rahul Mehra, Sr. Adv. Mr. Gautam Narayan, AOR Mr. Satyakam, Adv. Ms. Asmita Singh, Adv. Mr. Adithya Nair, Adv. Mr. Rakesh Malhotra, In Person Mr. Tungesh, Adv.

2 UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R 1 On 5 May 2021, three specific issues were flagged by this Court : (i) The methodology adopted by the Union G overnment for computing the requirement of oxygen of the State s and Union Territories 1 ; (ii) The ne ed to manag e available resources of oxygen to optimise their availability for the N ational C apital T erritory of Delhi 2 , which is depend e nt on:  An efficient supply chain;  Proper distribution of oxygen from the supply points to hospitals; and  Building b uffer stocks of oxygen ; and (iii) Actual availability of oxygen. Though the proceedings on 5 May 2021 arose in the context of a notice issued by the High Court of Delhi in its contempt jurisdiction, m any of the issues which have been recorded in the order are in continuation of the previous directions issued on 27 April 2021 and 30 April 2021 in Re: Distribution Of Essential Supplies And Services During Pandemic 3 . The issues faced by NCTD do in significant ways raise common areas of concern for the rest of the country. 1 “ UT ” 2 “ NCTD ” 3 Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No 3 of 2021

3 2 To obviate burdening the text of this order with copious references to the previous directions , the effort of the Court would be to build upon the developments which have taken place since the exercise of the jurisdiction by the Court of its own accord at the inception of the proceedings. It will suffice to note that on 30 April 2021, some of the key issues pertaining to the supply of oxygen have been identified. These have been set out in the order and are extracted below : “(i) Supply of oxygen – The Court should be apprised by the Union of India on (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 a s 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.” These excerpts indicate the broad areas of concern towards ensuring : (i) D etermination of the quantum of oxygen required by each State and UT by the application of a rational and scientific methodology; (ii) Allocation of the resources of oxygen to States/UTs on the basis of such a methodology;

4 (iii) Ensuring efficiency in the distributio n of oxygen from the points of supply through distri bution network w hich reach the ultimate users - institutional and individual , as the case may be; (iv) Monitoring the supply and distribution of oxygen; (v) Adopting steps for augmenting the available resources , on the basis of the present demand and projected increase of demand , based on the stage of the pandemic; (vi) Designing and monitoring an efficient system of transportation and other logistical arrangements which ensure seamless movement across the supply chai n; and (vii) C reat ing buffer stocks capable of being accessible in the ca s e of emergencies. 3 Apart from the issues of general concern and applicability which have been noted above, the specific issue pertaining to the allocation and distribution of oxygen to the NCTD has also seized the attention of this Court. In the order dated 30 Apri l 2021 , specific directions were issued in regard to the fulfilling i ts requirement for oxygen. The directions in paragraph 29 of the o rde r are recapitulated below : (i) Though the projected daily demand of NCTD as of 20 April 2021 had increased from 300 MT to 700 MT, the existing allocation had remained at 490 MT per day; (ii) This situation must “be remedied forthwith ” ;

5 (iii) On the intervention of the Court, the Union Government had stated that the demands for medical oxygen of NCTD would be met and th at it would not suffer due to a lack of oxygen; (iv) A peremptory direction was issued by t he Court in the above terms; and (v) The assurance of the Union Government that “henceforth” the deficit of oxygen would be rectified and supplies would be made to NCTD according to their projected demands ( which could be revised in the future) on a day to day basis would be complied with by the midnight of 3 May 2021. 4 Following the above order, t he High Court of Delhi issued a notice of contempt on 4 May 2021 for alleged non - compliance of its directions and those of t his Court , with regard to the supply of 700 MT of oxygen to NCTD by the Union Government . T hese proceedings were then initiated to challenge the notice of contempt issued by the High Court . This Court , in its order dated 5 May 2021 , stayed the invocation o f the contempt jurisdiction , but directed that the direction s contained in the order dated 30 April 2021 “ must be duly implemented”. While staying the contempt proceedings, an opportunity was granted to the Union G overnment to place a plan indicating the manner in which the 700 MT daily requirement of NCTD would be fulfilled. T he Court observed: “…an opportunity should be granted to the Central Government to place before this Court a plan specifically indicating the manner in which the requirement of the NCT of Delhi of 700 MT in terms of the order of this Court dated 30 April 2021 will be complied with, pending further directions of this Court. In order to furnish an opportunity to the Central Government to place a tabulated statement before this Court, we adjourn the proceedings to 11.00 am tomorrow when this Bench will assemble for its regular assignment of work. We accordingly direct that by 11.00 am tomorrow, the Central Government shall place a comprehensive pla n before this

6 Court indicating the manner in which the direction for the allocation of 700 MT of LMO to Delhi shall be complied with. The plan shall indicate: (i) Sources of supply; (ii) Provisions for transportation; and (iii) All other logistical arrangements necessary to ensure the fulfillment of the requirement of NCT of Delhi in terms of the order of this Court. ” 5 In pursuance of the above directions, a proposal has been placed on the record by the Solicitor General. The Union G overnment has ind icated that on 5 May 2021, 730 .7 MT of oxygen has been received in the NCTD. The status of the availability of oxygen at hospitals and major re - fillers as tabulated is extracted below: “ T he availability of oxygen at major hospitals and re - fillers in Delhi: Status: Hospitals (56) Current stock: 280 MT A verage daily consumption: 290 MT Storage capacity: 478 MT Re - fillers(11) Current stock: 73 MT Av era g e daily consumption: 82 MT Storage capacity: 187 MT Total (Hospitals + Re - fillers) Current stock: 353 MT Av era g e daily consumption: 372 MT Storage capacity: 665 MT ” 6 The Union G overnment has submitted that : (i) There is a need to unload stocks expeditiously so as to obviate a delay in the turnaround of tankers; (ii) 280 MT of oxygen is arriving into NCTD by „oxygen express trains‟. (iii) The requirement of NCTD , factually , is not 700 MT per day; and

7 (iv) In order to ensure the delivery of the above quantity to NCTD, allotments to other States may have to be reduced. Appended to the note submitted by the Solicitor General , is a plan detailing the transportation of 700 MT to NCTD . The plan , which is proposed for the transportation of 700 MT , indicates three sources of supply for ensuring the allocation to NCTD . These are: “ I. Synopsis A. Existing Allocation and Supply (Already operationalised) - 490 MT (30 MT not being supplied by India Glycols) B. Existing Allocation (Being Operationalised) - 100 MT + 40 MT (30 MT to compensate for India Glycols + 10 MT overall) C. Special Allocation - 100 MT A+B+C = 460 + 140 + 100 = 700 MT ” The special allocation of 100 MT is from RIL Jamnaga r , Gujarat . 7 Having provided a plan for ensuring the supply of 700 MT to NCTD to meet the daily requirement in terms of the previous orders dated 30 April 2021 and 5 May 2021 , t here is a tabulated statement at the end of the plan which indicates the following position: “ Conclusion Date of arrival of oxygen in Delhi A (Existing Allocation already operationalised) (MT) B (Existing allocation being operationalized) (MT) C (Special Allocation) (MT) Total (MT) Remarks 06.05.2021 460* - 100 560 *120 MT coming daily from Durgapur is contingent on LINDE getting 6 containers. As on date, capacity to only

8 transfer 90 MT with 18 containers available with Linde 07.05.2021 460 - 100 560 08.05.2021 460 - 100 560 09.05.2021 460 80 (4 containers from IOCL) 100 640 4 ISO containers being made available by IOCL to transport 80 MT 10.05.2021 460 140 (7 containers from DP World) 100 700 11.05.2021 460 100 560 12.05.2021 460 100 560 13.05.2021 460 80 (4 containers from IOCL) 100 640 4 ISO containers being made available by IOCL to transport 80 MT 14.05.2021 460 140 (7 containers from DP World) 100 700 Even the above tabulation is contingent, as is indicate d in the note and caveat appended to the pl an , which are extracted below : “ Total requirement of containers for supplying 700 MT daily to Delhi is contingent upon:  Making available 6 additional ISO containers for Durgapur  Making available 24 additional ISO containers for Kalinganagar Caveat: 1. The above plan for transportation of 700 MT to Delhi daily successfully is subject to availability of sufficient number of containers for deployment which are being

9 procured on lease from abroad by various agencies like IOCL, Reliance and Linde. 2. Allocation of containers as per the plan might lead to an inadequate number of containers being made available for transportation of oxygen to other states.” ( emphasis sup plied ) 8 The Solicitor General submits that : (i) The formula on the basis of which oxygen is being allocated to the States and UTs is not static but needs to be re - visited; (ii) There is an adequate quantity of oxyge n - resources and steps for augmentation are being undertaken at the highest level; (iii) The existing quantity needs to be allocated to the States and UTs ; and (iv) A continuous process of importing tankers for transportation is being conducted to resolve bottlenecks. With the above premises , it has been submitted that : (i) Many of the demand s by the States and UTs, including Government of NCT of Delhi 4 , for the provision of medical oxygen were „ unrealistic ‟ ; (ii) As a result of these projections, it became necessary for the Union Government to make an assessment , for which a formula was devised; (iii) The problem of shortage in NCTD is due to a system ic failure to ensure proper distribution of oxygen; (iv) In order to resolve the issue, it would be necessary to conduct an audit in regard to the manner in which the available supplies are distributed through the networks and are ultimately utilised; 4 “ GNCTD ”

10 (v) In order to facilitate a fresh assessment of the basis for allocation of oxygen , an expert committee may be constituted consisting of persons drawn from public and pr ivate healthcare institutions with experience in the fie ld; and (vi) I n order to ensure that the allocation and distribution of oxygen takes place on a rational and equitable basis, it is necessary to constitute a n ational t ask force of experts which would determine the method of allocation and distribution of oxygen across S tate s/UTs . S maller expert committee s or sub - groups may look into issues of auditing the manner in which supplies are to be distributed and utilised in each State/ UT . 9 W hile responding to the submissions of the Solicitor General, Mr Rahul Mehra, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the GNCTD, has welcomed the supply of 730 .7 MT of oxygen under the auspices of the allocation made by the Union G overnment. At the same time, he has expressed the apprehension that as of 9 am on 6 May 2021 , a total quantity of 189.532 MT has been delivered , and a quantity of 1 6.32 MT is in t ransit to the knowledge of GNCTD , resulting in a total availability of only 206 MT (approximately) . As opposed to this, Mr Mehra stated that on the previous two days, an average of 300 MT had been received by NCTD by 9 am. Mr Mehra has highlighted during the course of his submissions that: (i) A team of officers is deployed by G NCTD to ensure that the distribution networks are monitored and the needs of healthcare institutions and re - fillers are met;

11 (ii) The daily requirement of 700 MT for NCTD has been computed on the basis of the formul a adopted by the Union G overnment , without factoring in an additional requi rement of 256 MT consequent upon setting up of new facilities (including a facility being set up by DRDO) ; (iii) The additional facilities cannot be put to use for want of oxygen; (iv) The plan sub mitted by the Union G overnment is not in terms of the order of this Court dated 5 May 2021 but seeks , in substance , a review of the order dated 30 April 2021 , which is impermissible as the present hearing was confined to a challenge to the Delhi High Court‟s exercise of its co ntempt jurisdiction ; (v) No attention has been devoted by the Union Government to the need to create a buffer stock , as was directed by this Court in its order dated 30 April 2021 ; (vi) The additional requirement of NCTD (from 490 MT to 700 MT) is only 210 MT , whic h is a small fraction of the pan - India availability of oxygen , estimated at 84 1 0 MT by the Union G overnment . Further, the actual oxygen lifted by the respective States/UTs (as on 28 April 2021), out of their allocated quantity, was only 7334.53 MT ; (vii) No material has been produced to show that any other State would be would be affected by supplying the additional quantity to NCTD to make up the total requirement of 700 MT ; (viii) The data placed on the record of the High Court by the Union Government indicates that the Union Government has made full allocations to certain S tates and excess to others , as against their projected demands. However,

12 the NCTD was only allocated with 490 MT , as against its demand of 700 MT as on 21 April 2021 ; (ix) There is no need for an audit and, i f at all an audit is to be conducted, it should be of the availability of tankers; (x) In any event, the exercise of carrying an audit would be meaningless unless the formula pursuant to which the Union G overnment is allocating oxygen i s revisited; and (xi) Several steps have been taken by GNCTD to bring about efficiencies in the transportation of oxygen ; for instance, the tankers which have been recently acquired are being tracked on a real time basis through GPS. 10 Mr Jaideep Gupta and Ms Meenakshi Arora, learned Senior Counsel appearing as a micus c uriae , emphasised certain crucial issues . First , both the Senior Counsel emphasised the necessity of factoring in the projected demand for oxygen , i n realistically assessing the demand of oxygen in the foreseeable future . I t would be necessary to associate with the work of the Task Force , epidemiologi sts , virologist s and public health experts , who can draw upon their expertise for designing modelling - based estimates for the future . Second , contrary to the directions which were issued by this Court on 5 May 2021 that 700 MT of oxygen must be supplied to the NCTD , no concrete plan has been provided by the Union G overnment . Third , it is crucial for this Court to ensure t hat the daily requirement of NCTD of 700 MT is fulfilled by the Union G overnment . Fourth , there can be absolutely no disput e regarding the existence of oxygen shortages in the NCTD , warranting the need to maintain the existing requirement at 700 MT per day , besides building up buffer stocks.

13 11 These submissions can be analysed further in the context of the ground covered by the earlier orders. 12 The directions contained in the order of this Court dated 30 April 2021 leave no manner of doubt that the Union G overnment is under an obligation to ensure a daily supply of 700 MT to meet the existing requirements of the NCTD. This direction has been based on the assurance of the Union G overnment to the Court. The High Court of Delhi , finding that there was a breach of this direction , invoked the contempt jurisdiction. While the invocation of the coercive process has been stayed, this Court in its order dated 5 May 2021 has reiterated the direction for maintaining the supplies to NCTD at 700 MT per day. The Union G ov ernment was required to place on the record , a plan to achieve the fulfilment of this direction. The plan which has been placed before this Court is subject to caveats and conditions which cannot be accepted. What is sought to be assured in the first part of the plan is diluted with the next segment. 700 MT was not intended to be a requirement to be fulfilled for one day or sporadically , but on a daily basis. Daily basis means for every day. We accordingly direct , that there shall be no reduction in the all ocation and availability of medical oxygen to NCTD and the direction in regard to the provision of 700 MT per day shall continue to be observed. 13 On 30 April 2021, the order of this Court recorded the submission of the Union Government that there is “ no dearth of oxygen ” . The shortage of oxygen in the States/ U Ts was attributed to deficiencies in distribution and the inability to

14 lift the entire quantity of oxygen supplied. For convenience of reference, the relevant part is extracted below: “26 Based on the above facts and figures, the Solicitor General has stated that there is no dearth of oxygen supply in the country as on date and steps are being taken continuously to augment the supply of oxygen. Having said that, the Solicitor General has also ad mitted that there has been a shortage of supply to certain States and has attributed this shortage to various factors including the failure of State Governments to lift the allocated quantity of oxygen from the supply point; transportation bottlenecks caus ed by inter - State movement of tankers; and technical failure of certain plants leading to reassessment of allocation on a real time basis.” ( emphasis supplied ) 14 The Union Government has also on record state d that , as on 21 April 2021 , a quantity of 16,000 MT of LMO is available in the country . T he relevant extract is reproduced below for convenience of reference: “These actions have already been taken by the steel manufactures both in private and public sector which has resulted in immediate enh ancement of LMO production/ capacity by 293 MT. Apart from the current generation of LMO, the steel sector has made available the liquid oxygen available in its storage tanks for medical use (approximately 16,000 MT LMO is available as on 21st April 2021). Further, the safety stocks in the storage tanks of liquid oxygen at all locations has been brought down to 0.5 days in order to make available additional LMO. Till date the steel industry has supplied 143,000 MT of LMO since September 2020. As such, in th e month of April 2021, supplies of LMO by the steel sector have increased from 1000 MT per day in the first week of April 2021 to around 2600 MT on 21st April 2021.” ( emphasis supplied )

15 15 Except for a bare assertion that an increase of 2 1 0 MT to NCTD would result in a corresponding reduction to other States, no material has been produced on the record by the Union of India. On the contrary, the data produced before this court i n regard to the allocation and supply of oxygen to NCTD indicates the follo wing position : 16 GNCTD has stated that it has computed the requirement of oxygen on the basis of the formula which has been adopted by the Union Government. The Union Government has not disputed the correctness of the computation on the basis of the formul a. At this stage, no contrary material has been placed on the record by the Union Government . The attention of the Court has not been drawn to any error in the methodology of computation which has been adopted by GNCTD. GNCTD has drawn the attention of the Court to the serious deficiency in the availability of oxygen. This indicates that on 6 May 2021, the total quantity of oxygen delivered to NCTD was 577 MT, resulting in a shortfall of 123 MT. As of 9

16 am on 7 May 2021 , the total quantity which has been re ceived at NCTD border is 87.97 MT , while 9.64 MT is under transit. We direct the Union of India to remedy the situation forthwith and to ensure that the direction issued by this Court for the availability of 700 MT is strictly observed on a daily basis, pe nding further orders. National Task Force 17 During the course of the hearing, a consensus has emerged that there is a need to ensure that the allotments of medical oxygen to the States and U Ts is made on a scientific, rational and equitable basis . A t the same time , it must allow for flexibility to meet unforeseen demands due to emergencies which may arise within the allocated territories. The formula which has been adopted by the Union G overnment has been adverted to in the earlier order dated 5 May 2021 . Some of the deficiencies in regard to the basis and methodology have been flagged earlier. The Court suggested that an expert body drawn of inter alia renowned national experts with diverse experience in health institutions can be considered for being set up a s a National Task Force , which will provide a public heath response to the pandemic on the basis of a scientific approach . The Solicitor General informed the Court that the Union Government has responded favourably to the suggestion and in fact, his submissions , which have been adverted to earlier , record this specifically . I t is necessary that an effective and transparent mechanism is set up within the Union G overnment for the purpose of allocating medical oxygen to all States and U Ts for being used during the COVID - 19 pandemic . T he Union Government has agreed to set up a National

17 Task Force 5 to streamline the process. This Task Force would be tasked inter alia with formulating a methodology for the scientific allocation of oxygen to the States and UTs . The Union Government has made its suggestions on the possible names for inclusion in the composition of the Task Force , while leaving its final composition to the Court. The National Task Force which is being constituted in pursuance o f the above suggestion shall consist of the following members (names being set out in alphabetical order). (i) Dr Bhabatosh Biswas, Former Vice Chancellor, West Bengal University of Health Sciences, Kolkata; (ii) Dr Devender Singh Rana, Chair person , Board of Management, Sir Ganga Ram Hospital, Delhi; (iii) Dr Devi Prasad Shetty, Chair person and Executive Director, Narayana Healthcare , Bengaluru ; (iv) Dr Gagandeep K ang, Professor, Chris t ian Medical C ollege, Vellore , Tamil Nadu; (v) Dr JV Peter, Director, Christian Medical College, Vellore, Tamil Nadu; (vi) Dr Naresh Trehan, Chairperson and Managing Director , Medanta Hospital and Heart Institute , Gurugram; (vii) Dr Rahul Pandit, Director, Critical Care Medicine and ICU, Fortis Hospital, Mulund (Mumbai, Maharashtra) and Kalyan (Maharashtra); (viii) Dr Saumitra Rawat, Chairman & Head , Department of Surgical Gastroenterology and Liver Transplant, Sir Ganga Ram Hospital, Delhi; 5 “ Task Force ”

18 (ix) Dr Shiv Kumar Sarin, Senior Professor and Head of Department of Hepatology, Director, Institute of Liver and Biliary Science (ILBS) , Delhi ; (x) Dr Zarir F Udwadia, Consultant Chest Physician, Hinduja Hospital, Breach Candy Hospital and Parsee General Hospital , Mumbai ; (xi) Secretary, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of In dia ( ex officio member) ; and (xii) The Convenor of the National Task Force, who shall also be a member , will be the Cabinet Secretary to the Union Government . The Cabinet Secretary may nominate an officer not below the rank of Additional Secretary to depute for him, when necessary. 18 The Task Force is at liberty to draw upon the human resources of the Union Government for consultation and information , including the following : (i) A member of Niti Aayog to be nominated by the Vice - Chairperson; (ii) Secretary, Ministry of H ome Affairs; (iii) Secretary, Department for Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade; (iv) Secretary, Ministry of Road Transport and Highways; (v) Director, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi; (vi) Director General, Indian Council of Medical Research, New Delhi; (vii) Director General of Health Services; and (viii) Director General, National Informatics Centre; and (ix) Head, Centre for Development of Advanced Computing (C - DAC).

19 19 The concerned Secretaries shall be at liberty to nominate officers of the rank of Additional/Joint Secretary to depute for them. The Task Force is at liberty to formulate its modalities and procedure for working. 20 The Task Force may constitute one or more sub - groups on specialised areas or regions for assisting it, before finalising its recommendations. The Task Force may consider it appropriate to co - opt or seek the assistance of other experts within or outside government to facilitate its working , including in the following areas: (i) Infectious disease modelling; (ii) Critical care; (iii) Clinical virology/Immunology; and (iv) Epidemiology/Public health. 21 The amicus curiae appointed by this Court had tendered a list of experts on each of the above subjects ( ( i ) to ( iv ) above in paragraph 20 ). In order to not constrain the discretion of the Task Force, we permit the Task Force t o co - opt any one or more of the experts suggested by the a micus curiae or any other experts. 22 The Union Government and State G overnments, Ministries, agencies and departments sh all provide complete and real time data for facilitating the work of the Task Force as and when necessary. All private hospitals and other health care institutions shall co - operate with the T ask Force.

20 23 The rationale for constituting a T ask Force at a national level is to facilitate a public health response to the pandemic based on scientific and specialised domain knowledge. We expect that the leading experts in the country shall associate with the work of the Task Force both as members and resource persons. This will facilitate a meeting of minds and the formulation of scientific strategies to deal with an unprecedented human crisis. The establishment of this Task Force will enable the decision makers to have inputs which go beyond findi ng ad - hoc solutions to the present problems. The likely future course of the pandemic must be taken into contemplation at the present time. This will ensure that projected future requirements can be scientifically mapped in the present and may be modulated in the light of experiences gained. Estimating projected needs is crucial to ensure that the country remains prepared to meet future eventualities, which will cause a demand for oxygen, medicines, infrastructure, manpower and logistics. The establishment of the Task Force will provide the Union Government with inputs and strategies for meeting the challenges of the pandemic on a transparent and professional basis , in the present and in future . Bearing this in mind , we presently frame the following terms o f reference for the Task Force. These t erms can be modulated subsequently , as and when the need arises. 24 The t erms of reference of the National Task Force shall be to: (i) Assess and make recommendations for the entire country based on the need for, availabil ity and distribution of medical oxygen; (ii) Formulate and devise the methodology for the allocation of medical oxygen to the States and U Ts on a scientific, rational and equitable basis;

21 (iii) Make recommendations on augmenting the available supplies of oxygen based on present and projected demands likely during the pandemic; (iv) Make recommendations for the periodical review and revision of allocations based on the stage and impact of the pandemic; (v) Facilitate audits by sub - groups within each State and UT inter alia for determining : (a) whether the supplies allocated by the Union Government reach the concerned State/UT ; (b) the efficacy of the distribution networks in distributing supplies meant for hospitals, health care institutions and others; (c) whether the available stoc ks are being distributed on the basis of an effective, transparent and professional mechanism; and (d) accountability in regard to the utilisation of the supplies of oxygen allocated to each State/UT; (vi) Review and suggest measures necessary for ensuring the ava ilability of essential drugs and medicines ; (vii) Plan and adopt remedial measures for ensuring preparedness to meet present and future emergencies which may arise during the pandemic; (viii) Facilitate the use of technology to ensure that the available manpower is optimised for implementing innovative solutions particularly in order to provide an outreach of expert medical care to rural areas; (ix) Suggest measures to augment the availability of trained doctors, nurses and para - medical staff including by the creation of suitable incentives;

22 (x) Promote evidence based research to enhance effective responses to the pandemic; (xi) Facilitate the sharing of best practices across the nation to promote knowledge about the management of the pandemic and treatment of cases; and (xii) Gene rally , to make recommendations in regard to other issues of pressing national concern to find effective responses to the pandemic. 25 The purpose of conducting audits under item (v) of paragraph 2 4 is to ensure a measure of accountability for the proper distribution of oxygen supplies made available by the Union Government to the States/UTs. For the purpose of facilitating the audits under item ( v ) of paragraph 2 4 above, the T ask F orce will constitut e sub - group s /committees for each State/ UT comprising : (i) An officer of the State /UT G overnment not below the rank of Secretary to the State G overnment; (ii) An officer of the Union Government not below the rank of Additional/Joint Secretary; (iii) Two medical doctors in the State/UT concerned including at least one with administrative experience of managing the medical facilities of a hospital; and (iv) A representative from the Petroleum and Explosives Safety Organisation (PESO). For carrying out the above audit exercise for NCTD , the audit sub - group shall consist of :

23 (i) Dr Randeep Guleria, Professor and Head, Department of Pulmonary Medicine and Sleep, AIIMS; (ii) Dr Sandeep Budhiraja, Clinical Director & Director – Internal Medicine, Max Healthcare; and (iii) An IAS officer , each from the Union Government and GNCTD , not below the rank of Joint Secretary. 26 We emphasise that the purpose of conducting audits is to ensure accountability in respect of the supplies of oxygen provided to every State/ UT. The purpose is to ensure that the supplies which have been allocated are reaching their destination; that they are being made available through the distribution network to the hospitals or, as the case may be, the end users efficiently and on a transpa rent basis; and to identify bottlenecks or issues in regard to the utilization of oxygen. The purpose of the audit is not to scrutinise the decisions made in good faith by doctors while treating their patients . 27 The Union Government shall continue with the present practice of making allocations of oxygen (as modified by the orders of this Court or the orders of the High Courts as the case may be) until the T ask Force has submitted its recommendations in regard to proposed modalities. The Union Gover nment shall on receipt of the recommendations of the Task F orce take an appropriate decision in regard to the allocation of oxygen and on all other recommendations . The Task Force shall also submit its recommendations from time to time to this Court. We r equest the Task F orce to commence work immediately, taking up the pressing issue of determining the modalities for oxygen expeditiously within a

24 week . The tenure of the T ask Force shall be six months initially. The Union Government shall provide all necess ary assistance to the Task F orce and nominate two N odal O fficer s to facilitate its work. The Nodal O fficers shall also arrange for logistics, including communication with the members and arranging the virtual meetings , of the Task Force. 28 The proceeding shall be listed before this Court on 1 7 May 2021 . (SANJAY KUMAR - I) (SAROJ KUMARI GAUR) AR - CUM - PS COURT MASTER

1 ITEM NO.1 Court 5 (Video Conferencing) SECTION XIV S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) Diary No(s).11622/2021 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 01-05-2021 in WP(C) No. 3031/2020 and 04-05-2021 in WP(C) No. 3031/2020 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi) UNION OF INDIA Petitioner(s) VERSUS RAKESH MALHOTRA & ANR. Respondent(s) Date : 05-05-2021 These petitions were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE D.Y. CHANDRACHUD HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.R. SHAH Mr. Jaideep Gupta, Sr. Adv. (A.C.) Ms. Meenakshi Arora, Sr. Adv. (A.C.) Mr. Kunal Chatterji, AOR Mr. Mohit Ram, AOR Mr. Avnish Kumar Sharma, Adv. For Petitioner(s) Mr. Tushar Mehta, SG Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, ASG Mr. Rajat Nair, Adv. Mr. Kanu Agrawal, Adv. Mr. Amit Mahajan, Adv. Mr. Prashant Singh B, Adv. Mr. Raj Bahadur Yadav, AOR Mr. Gurmeet Singh Makkar, AOR Mr. B. V. Balaram Das, AOR For Respondent(s) Mr. Rahul Mehra, Sr. Adv. Mr. Gautam Narayan, AOR Mr. Satyakam, Adv. Ms. Asmita Singh, Adv. Mr. Adithya Nair, Adv. Mr. Rakesh Malhotra, In Person Mr. Tungesh, Adv.

2 UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R 1 These proceedings have arisen from two orders of the Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi dated 1 May 2021 and 4 May 2021. By the first of these orders, the High Court directed the Central Government to ensure that the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi 1 receives its allocated supply of 490 MT “positively today, by whatever means”. The Central Government was directed to arrange tankers so that the allocation made to Delhi could be fulfilled. The High Court directed that if the order is not implemented, the concerned officers of the Government shall remain present during the hearing on 3 May 2021. 2 By the second order of the High Court, the Central Government has been directed to show cause as to why contempt action should not be initiated not only for non-compliance with its order dated 1 May 2021, but also of the order passed by this Court in the meantime on 30 April 2021 (which was released and uploaded on the website of the Supreme Court of India on 2 May 2021) . 3 At this stage, it may be material to note that the order of this Court dated 30 April 2021, followed upon a comprehensive hearing on diverse aspects of the management of the COVID-19 pandemic. 4 By the order of this Court dated 30 April 2021, certain specific directions were issued in regard to the supply of oxygen to the NCT of Delhi. Paragraphs 27, 28 and 29 of the order are extracted below for convenience of reference: “27 Submissions have also been made on the issue of supply of oxygen by Mr Rahul Mehra, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi. Mr Rahul Mehra submits that the GNCTD is facing an acute shortage of the supply of oxygen as it had been 1 “GNCTD”

3 allocated a substantially lower quantity of oxygen as against its projected demand. Mr Mehra pointed out that initially as on 15 April 2021, the projected demand of GNCTD for 20 April 2021 was 300 MT/day, for 25 April 2021 it was 349 MT/day, and for 30 April 2021 it was 445 MT/day. However, due to a surge in cases, the projected demand was revised by GNCTD on 18 April 2021 to 700MT/day and this was immediately communicated to the Central Government. Despite the increase in projected demand, the supply of oxygen to GNCTD has continued in terms of the allocation order dated 25 April 2021, in which 490 MT/day were allocated. As against this as well, the manufacturers have only been able to supply 445 MT/day. Mr Mehra has clarified that as on the date of the hearing their demand was 700MT/day, however their projected demand for the coming days is stated to be 976 MT/day as the GNCTD has planned an increase in medical infrastructure, including beds with oxygen cylinders and beds for patients in intensive care unit. 28 Opposing his submission, the Solicitor General and Ms Dawra stated that no revised projections have been received from GNCTD till date. The Solicitor General has also sought to highlight that the government of GNCTD has failed to offtake the allocated quantity of oxygen from the supply point. 29 Having heard the submissions of both counsel on the issues pertaining to supply of oxygen to GNCTD, we note that the Central Government (on page 63) in its affidavit dated 23 April 2021 has admitted that the projected demand for GNCTD as of 20 April 2021 had increased by 133% from 300 MT/day to 700 MT/day. According to the figures of allocation given in the affidavit dated 23 April 2021 and the presentation given by Ms Dawra, the existing allocation of GNCTD remains at 490 MT/day. This situation must be remedied forthwith. The situation on the ground in Delhi is heart rending. Recriminations between the Central Government (which contends that GNCTD has not lifted its allocated quantity) and GNCTD (which contends that despite its projected demand the quantity allocated has not been enhanced) can furnish no solace to citizens whose lives depend on a thin thread of oxygen being available. On the intervention of the Court during the hearing, the Solicitor General states that he has instructions to the effect that GNCTD’s demand of medical oxygen will be met and that the national capital will not suffer due to lack of oxygen. We issue a peremptory direction in those terms. In the battle of shifting responsibility of supplying/off-taking of oxygen, lives of citizens cannot be put in jeopardy. The protection of the lives of citizens is paramount in times of a national crisis and the responsibility falls on both the Central Government and the GNCTD to cooperate with each other to ensure that all possible measures are taken to resolve

4 the situation. Learned Senior Counsel for GNCTD has assured the court after taking instructions at the ‘highest’ level that the issue will be resolved completely in a spirit of co-operation. During the course of the hearing, the Solicitor General has assured that henceforth he will ensure that the deficit of oxygen is rectified and supply is made to the GNCTD according to their projected demand (which may be revised in the future) on a day by day basis. We accept his submission and direct compliance within 2 days from the date of the hearing, that is, on or before midnight of 3 May 2021.” 5 In the operative order, the following directions were issued: “(i) The UOI shall ensure, in terms of the assurance of the Solicitor General, that the deficit in the supply of oxygen to the GNCTD is rectified within 2 days from the date of the hearing, that is, on or before the midnight of 3 May 2021.” 6 When the High Court of Delhi was seized of the proceedings on 4 May 2021, it was argued on behalf of the Central Government that: (i) The compliance affidavit would be filed before this Court in regard to the steps which have been taken to fulfill the terms of the directions issued by the Court in its order dated 30 April 2021; and (ii) This Court has not directed the supply of 700 MT of Liquid Medical Oxygen 2 per day to the NCT of Delhi. 7 The High Court held that neither of these submissions could be accepted. In the view of the High Court, the order of this Court mandates that a supply of 700 MT of LMO per day has to be effected to the NCT of Delhi as against which the producers of oxygen have been able to supply 445 MT per day. 8 Aggrieved by the directions of the High Court initiating contempt proceedings against two of its officers, the Union of India is in appeal. 2 “LMO”

5 9 At the outset, Mr Tushar Mehta, learned Solicitor General, has submitted that the Central Government accepts its obligation to comply with the order of this Court dated 30 April 2021, accepting the interpretation that the order mandates the supply of 700 MT of LMO per day to the NCT of Delhi. However, it has been submitted that the exercise of the contempt jurisdiction was not warranted for a variety of reasons. Firstly, it has been submitted that an expert group was constituted by the Central Government consisting of (i) Dr V K Paul, Member of the NITI Aayog; (ii) Dr Randeep Guleria, Director, AIIMS; (iii) Director General of ICMR; and (iv) Director General of Health Services for computing the requirement of oxygen across India on a rational basis. The expert group determined that the oxygen requirement would be calculated on the following basis: (i) For 50% of non-ICU beds at the rate of 10 litres per minute; (ii) For 100% of ICU beds at the rate of 24 litres per minute. 10 On this basis, it has been submitted that the optimal demand of NCT of Delhi should be in the range of 415.43 MT/day and that the demand of 700 MT of LMO per day, as claimed, appears to be contrary to its optimal requirements. The basis of the above computation is on the following premises: “I. Calculation sheet for Oxygen Requirement for Non- ICU beds: i) Total number of Non-ICU beds -16272 (as per GNCTD); ii) As per the GOI formulae 50% of these require oxygen: i.e. 8136 non-ICU beds require oxygen; iii) The Oxygen requirement in liters for these non-ICU beds is @ 10 liter/Minute iv) Thus for 1 minute the oxygen requirement for 8136 non- ICU beds comes out to be 81360 liter/Minute [8136 * 10= 81360] v) On the aforesaid calculation the oxygen requirement of 1

6 day comes out to be 11,71,58,400 liters [81360 * 60(min in 1 hr) X 24(hrs in 1 day) = 11,71,58,400] vi) The aforesaid demand of 11,71,58,400 liters of oxygen comes out to be 152 MT of oxygen as per the following formulae. a) 1 Metric ton = 770000 litres b) Conversion of litres to Mt for 1 Day = 117158400 ÷ 770000 = 152.15 MT II. Calculation sheet for Oxygen Requirement for ICU beds : i) Total number of ICU beds 5866; ii) The Oxygen requirement in liters for these ICU beds as per GOI Norms is @ 24 litre/minute; iii) Thus for 1 minute the oxygen requirement for 5866 ICU beds for 1 minute comes out to be 1,40,784 litre/Minute [5866 * 24= 1,40,784] iv) On the aforesaid calculation the oxygen requirement of 1 day for ICU beds comes out to be 20,27,28,960 litres [1,40,784 * 60 * 24 = 20,27,28,960] v) The aforesaid demand of 20,27,28,960 liters of oxygen for a day comes out to be 263.28 MT of oxygen as per the following formulae. a) 1 Metric ton = 770000 litre b) Conversion of litre to MT for 1 day - 20,27,28,960 ÷ 770000 = 263.28 MT III. The total oxygen requirement of NCT of Delhi comes out to be: Demand for Non- ICU beds 152.15 + demand for ICU beds 263.28 = 415.43 MT ” ( emphasis in original ) 11 The second submission which has been urged by the Solicitor General is that progressively, an effort has been made by the Central Government in good faith to increase the stock of medical oxygen which is available for distribution across the country and as a result of those efforts presently, about 9000 MT of medical grade oxygen is available in the pool for distribution across the country. As a result of this, it has been submitted that the availability of oxygen to NCT of

7 Delhi which stood at 433 MT on 3 May 2021 has increased to 555 MT on 4 May 2021 and today, until 12 noon, a total quantity of 351.56 MT has reached NCT of Delhi. The cycle for measurement of supplies commences from midnight and ends at midnight on the following day. There is in other words no intentional violation so as to warrant invocation of the power to punish for contempt. 12 The third submission which has been urged by the Solicitor General is that if a comparison is drawn with the requirements for the City of Mumbai, it emerges that at the peak of its oxygen requirement when Mumbai had an active case load of 92,000 on 10 April 2021, the oxygen consumption was about 275 MT LMO each day. Hence, it has been urged that Mumbai was able to manage with a total requirement of 275 MT MLO with a proper institutional framework in place through which oxygen handling and storage capacity was taken care of in a planned manner. 13 The fourth submission which has been urged by the Solicitor General is that if a proper audit is conducted of the requirement of oxygen for the NCT of Delhi by a broad-based committee consisting of officers drawn from GNCTD, the Central Government and experts drawn from public hospitals in NCT of Delhi and from the private sector, a scientific assessment can be made of the actual requirement of NCT of Delhi on the basis of which an allocation can be made. 14 In other words, it has been urged that increasing the oxygen allocation to 700 MT will only result in the reduction of allocation to another critically affected area of the country and this has to be arrived at on a scientific rationale. 15 Apart from the Solicitor General, we have interacted, on the video conferencing platform in open court, with Mr Piyush Goyal, Additional Secretary in the Union Ministry of Home Affairs. Mr Goyal has indicated the steps which have been taken by the Central Government for augmenting the supply of oxygen to NCT of

8 Delhi. The Court has been apprised of the following steps taken: (i) The virtual control room which takes care of the entire country has been specifically augmented in the case of NCT of Delhi by engaging with the officers of GNCTD as well as officers of the Central Government; (ii) A quantity of 140 MT which was imported, arrived at Mundra port and was dispatched to the NCT of Delhi, where it has arrived yesterday for being allocated and supplied; (iii) Apart from the imported supplies, an additional quantity of 80 MT initially was sourced from the State of Gujarat which has been progressively enhanced to 102-103 MT per day; and (iv) Arrangements have been made with the Railways for a complement of four trains to carry the stock of oxygen from supply points in various regions to NCT of Delhi on a schedule which will ensure the adequate availability of oxygen. 16 We may also note at this stage that Mr Rahul Mehra, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of GNCTD, has furnished the following data in regard to the quantity of oxygen which has been allocated to NCT of Delhi since 28 April 2021. The figures which have been indicated before the Court are as follows:  28 April 2021 - 431.26 MT  29 April 2021 - 409.38 MT  30 April 2021 - 324.63 MT  1 May 2021 - 422.04 MT

9  2 May 2021 - 447.59 MT  3 May 2021 - 433.09 MT  4 May 2021 - 555.01 MT 17 The data which has been provided by the Senior Counsel for GNCTD suggests that there has been an increase in the availability of oxygen between 2, 3 and 4 May 2021, though the quantity of 700 MT which was prescribed in the order of this Court dated 30 April 2021 is yet to be achieved. 18 Mr Piyush Goyal, learned Additional Secretary, drew the attention of the Court to the fact that there was a drop in the supply on 30 April 2021 as a result of the non-availability of a specified source of supply. 19 At the outset, it needs to be clarified that the reason why this Court has been persuaded to take up these proceedings during the pendency of the contempt proceedings in the High Court is because recourse to the contempt jurisdiction against two officers (one of whom, Ms Dawra, has tested COVID-19 positive but continues to attend to her duties while in isolation) will not in itself resolve the problem which is confronting NCT of Delhi. At this stage, when the country is faced with a serious pandemic, the effort of the Court must be to facilitate problem solving by the active engagement and cooperation of all stake holders. The High Court of Delhi has been engaging with the situation virtually on a day to day basis and has been considering diverse aspects of the matter. The contempt notice is an expression of its anguish. The issue of the availability of oxygen for NCT of Delhi has to be resolved bearing in mind the availability of oxygen in the country so that suitable arrangements are made for allocation, transportation from the point of supply and distribution within the city. The Union Government cannot be oblivious to the urgent need and demand for oxygen to

10 meet the requirements of the NCT of Delhi. It is with that end in view that this Court by its order dated 30 April 2021 directed the allocation of 700 MT of oxygen per day to NCT of Delhi. The effort to persuade the High Court that there was in fact no such direction by this Court was an evident attempt at legal disingenuity and has been correctly rejected. The Solicitor General has not pressed such a submission in these proceedings. 20 After hearing the submissions of the learned counsel as well as of Mr Jaideep Gupta and Ms Meenakshi Arora, learned Senior Counsels, who have appeared as amicus curiae , it appears to the Court that the problem has four dimensions. 21 The first aspect of the problem is the methodology or formula which is being employed by the Union Government for computing the requirement of oxygen to the States and the Union Territories. As we have noted earlier, the formula which has been arrived at by the expert group is on the basis of a certain requirement of oxygen per minute for ICU and non-ICU beds and the patient load. It is on the basis of this formula that an allocation is being made for diverse areas of the country. In view of the experience which has been gained since the formula was adopted, it would be necessary for the Central Government to look at the formula afresh and to determine as to whether it needs to be altered having regard to the specific requirements of areas such as NCT of Delhi which have been seriously affected by the second surge of the pandemic. For instance, one aspect which needs to be underlined is that the requirement of oxygen is tagged to the number of beds, both ICU and non-ICU beds. Apart from the requirement of oxygen in a formal institutional framework, oxygen is also being made available to individuals who are unable to get beds in hospitals. Hence, it would not be adequate to make an assessment of the quantity of oxygen required based exclusively on the formula which has been used thus far by the Central Government. While we have underscored this aspect, this is certainly a matter

11 which would need to engage the fresh attention of a body of experts who may determine whether any change or modifications are required to meet the exigencies of a rapidly deteriorating situation. 22 The second aspect of the matter is the requirement of managing the resources of oxygen so as to optimize the availability of the NCT of Delhi. This would be dependent on the efficiency of the supply chain and a proper distribution of oxygen from the supply points up to the hospitals. Another aspect under this sub-head, which has already been emphasized by the order of this Court dated 30 April 2021 is the requirement of building up proper stocks of oxygen so that in the event of an emergency, alternate buffer stocks are available to prevent deaths due to the disruption of supplies. 23 The third aspect which needs to be emphasized is the actual availability of oxygen. We are inclined to reflect further on the submission which has been urged on behalf of the Union of India by the Solicitor General that some modalities may be put into place to carry out a scientific audit of the requirement of the NCT of Delhi. Whether the audit results in revealing a higher requirement than what has been indicated in the order of this Court dated 30 April 2021 will be seen. At this stage, it has emerged before the Court that efficient administrative modalities were placed into operation by the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai during the second wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. In order to enable the GNCTD as well as the Central Government to have the benefit of these shared experiences, there has been a consensus before us that a team of officers comprised both of GNCTD as well as the Central Government will engage in the next three days with the officials and medical experts of the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai as well as the team of expert private doctors set up by the Government of Maharashtra and derive inputs from the modalities which were followed for augmenting the oxygen

12 supply to Mumbai. Based on these experience, steps can be taken in close collaboration between the Central Government and GNCTD for replicating the administrative arrangements which were arrived at in Mumbai to the extent they may be found to be feasible in their application to NCT of Delhi. 24 The Court will also hear submissions on whether a scientific audit can be conducted by broad-based team consisting of officers of GNCTD, Central Government as well as the experts drawn from public and private sector health institutions in NCT of Delhi. 25 In the meantime, until the above exercise is carried out, the directions which are contained in the order of this Court dated 30 April 2021 must be duly implemented. It is prima facie not expedient at this stage to take recourse to the coercive arm of the law by invoking the contempt jurisdiction against the two officials of the Central Government and an opportunity should be granted to the Central Government to place before this Court a plan specifically indicating the manner in which the requirement of the NCT of Delhi of 700 MT in terms of the order of this Court dated 30 April 2021 will be complied with, pending further directions of this Court. In order to furnish an opportunity to the Central Government to place a tabulated statement before this Court, we adjourn the proceedings to 11.00 am tomorrow when this Bench will assemble for its regular assignment of work. We accordingly direct that by 11.00 am tomorrow, the Central Government shall place a comprehensive plan before this Court indicating the manner in which the direction for the allocation of 700 MT of LMO to Delhi shall be complied with. The plan shall indicate: (i) Sources of supply; (ii) Provisions for transportation; and

13 (iii) All other logistical arrangements necessary to ensure the fulfillment of the requirement of NCT of Delhi in terms of the order of this Court. 26 This plan would remain in operation pending further orders of this Court when the Court would take up the wider submissions both in relation to GNCTD as well as for the rest of the country. 27 In view of the above directions, we stay the operation of the contempt notice which has been issued by the High Court of Delhi on 4 May 2021. However, we clarify, as we did in terms of our previous order, that the stay which has been granted of the contempt proceedings shall not operate as an order of restraint on the High Court continuing to monitor the issues which have arisen before it. 28 In order to enable the Central Government to place a comprehensive plan for allocation, supply and distribution of oxygen to meet the requirements of GNCTD, we direct that a meeting shall be held this evening between the Chief Secretary, Principal Secretary, Health of GNCTD with a team of officers of the Central Government. The meeting may be held consistent with the COVID-19 protocols on a virtual platform. 29 List the Special Leave Petitions tomorrow (6 May 2021) at 11.00 am. (SANJAY KUMAR-I) (SAROJ KUMARI GAUR) AR-CUM-PS COURT MASTER

ITEM NO.302 Court 5 (Video Conferencing) SECTION PIL-W S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Writ Petition(s)(Civil) No(s).495/2021 VISHAL TIWARI Petitioner(s) VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Respondent(s) (WITH IA No.58248/2021-EXEMPTION FROM FILING AFFIDAVIT and IA No.58247/2021-PERMISSION TO APPEAR AND ARGUE IN PERSON) Date : 30-04-2021 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE D.Y. CHANDRACHUD HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. NAGESWARA RAO HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT For Petitioner(s) Petitioner-in-person For Respondent(s) UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R List the Writ Petition on 10 May 2021. (SANJAY KUMAR-I) (SAROJ KUMARI GAUR) AR-CUM-PS COURT MASTER

ITEM NO.303 Court 5 (Video Conferencing) SECTION PIL-W S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Writ Petition(s)(Civil) No(s).482/2021 SAVE THEM INDIA FOUNDATION Petitioner(s) VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Respondent(s) (WITH IA No.57506/2021-EXEMPTION FROM FILING AFFIDAVIT) Date : 30-04-2021 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE D.Y. CHANDRACHUD HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. NAGESWARA RAO HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT For Petitioner(s) Mr. Vishal Tiwari, Adv. Mr. Abhigya Kushwah, AOR Ms. Pooja Giri, Adv. Mr. Shailendra Mani Tripathi, Adv. Ms. Susmita Mahala, Adv. Mr. Siddharth Rajkumar Murarka, Adv. Ms. Sunita Yadav, Adv. Mr. Pradeep Kumar Dubey, Adv. Ms. Anamika Kushwaha, Adv. Ms. Nandita Rao, Adv. Mrs. Mahija Reddy, Adv. Mr. K.N. Agnihotri, Adv. Mr. Virender Arora, Adv. For Respondent(s) UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R List the Writ Petition on 10 May 2021. (SANJAY KUMAR-I) (SAROJ KUMARI GAUR) AR-CUM-PS COURT MASTER

1 Revised ITEM NO.301 Court 5 (Video Conferencing) SECTION PIL-W S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS SMW (C) No.3/2021 IN RE : DISTRIBUTION OF ESSENTIAL SUPPLIES AND SERVICES DURING PANDEMIC (WITH IA No. 58598/2021 - APPROPRIATE ORDERS/DIRECTIONS, IA No. 57404/2021 - APPROPRIATE ORDERS/DIRECTIONS, IA No. 58531/2021 – CLARIFICATION/DIRECTION, IA No. 57405/2021 - EARLY HEARING APPLICATION, IA No. 58424/2021 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING AFFIDAVIT, IA No. 58533/2021 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING AFFIDAVIT, IA No. 57400/2021 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING AFFIDAVIT, IA No. 58529/2021 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING AFFIDAVIT, IA No. 57607/2021 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING AFFIDAVIT, IA No. 57396/2021 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING AFFIDAVIT, IA No. 58512/2021 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING AFFIDAVIT, IA No. 57602/2021 - INTERVENTION APPLICATION, IA No. 58509/2021 - INTERVENTION APPLICATION, IA No. 58597/2021 - INTERVENTION APPLICATION, IA No. 58423/2021 - INTERVENTION APPLICATION, IA No. 57403/2021 - INTERVENTION APPLICATION, IA No. 58411/2021 - INTERVENTION APPLICATION, IA No. 58399/2021 - INTERVENTION APPLICATION, IA No. 57399/2021 - INTERVENTION APPLICATION, IA No. 58527/2021 - INTERVENTION APPLICATION, IA No. 57395/2021 – INTERVENTION/IMPLEADMENT, IA No. 58585/2021 – INTERVENTION/IMPLEADMENT, IA No. 58511/2021 - PERMISSION TO APPEAR AND ARGUE IN PERSON, IA No. 57406/2021 - PERMISSION TO APPEAR AND ARGUE IN PERSON, IA No. 57605/2021 - PERMISSION TO APPEAR AND ARGUE IN PERSON) Date : 30-04-2021 This matter was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE D.Y. CHANDRACHUD HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. NAGESWARA RAO HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT Mr. Jaideep Gupta, Sr. Adv. (A.C.) Mr. Avnish Kumar Sharma, Adv. Ms. Meenakshi Arora, Sr. Adv. (A.C.) For Petitioner(s) By Courts Motion For Respondent(s) Mr. Tushar Mehta, SG Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, ASG Mr. Rajat Nair, Adv. Mr. Kanu Agrawal, Adv. Mr. Amit Mahajan, Adv. Mr. Prashant Singh B, Adv.

2 Mr. Raj Bahadur Yadav, AOR Mr. Gurmeet Singh Makkar, AOR Mr. Tushar Mehta, SG Mr. Maninder Singh, Sr. Adv. Ms. Manisha Lavkumar, Sr. Adv. Mr. A P Mayee, AOR Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Sr. Adv. Mr. Mahendra Singh Singhvi, Adv. Gen. Mr. Amit Bhandari, Adv. Mr. Sandeep Jha, Adv. Mr. Vikas Singh, Sr. Adv. Mr. Suhaan Mukerji, Adv. Mr. Vishal Prasad, Adv. Ms. Deepeika Kalia, Adv. Mr. Nikhil Parikshith, Adv. Mr. Abhishek Manchanda, Adv. Mr. Kapish Seth, Adv. Mr. Mrityunjai Singh, Adv. Mr. Sayandeep Pahari, Adv. M/S. Plr Chambers and Co. Mr. Vikas Singh, Sr. Adv. Mr. Pradeep Kumar Rai, Sr. Adv. Ms. Mahalakshmi Pavani, Sr. Adv. Mr. Arijit Prasad, Adv. Mr. Brijender Chahar, Sr. Adv. Ms. Sonia Mathur, Sr. Adv. Mr. Vikas Pahwa, Sr. Adv. Mr. Meenesh Dubey, Adv. Ms. Ritu Bhadwaj, Adv. Mr. Anupam Mishra, Adv. Ms. Nina Gupta, Adv. Ms. K.V. Bharathi Upadhyaya, Adv. Mr. Mukesh Kumar Singh, Adv. Ms. Sasmita Tripathy, Adv. Mr. Prashant Singh, Adv. Ms. Prerna Kumari, Adv. Ms. Seema Patnaha, Adv. Ms. Nandani Gupta, Adv. Mr. Rahul Kaushik, Adv. Mr. Rahul Mehra, Sr. Adv. Mr. Satyakam, Adv. Mr. Gautam Narayan, AOR Ms. Asmita Singh, Adv. Mr. Adithya Nair, Adv. Mr. Anand Grover, Sr. Adv. Ms. Rajeshwari Hariharan, Adv Mr. R. Sathyanarayanan, Adv

3 Ms. Nupur Kumar, Adv Ms. Mantika Haryani, Adv Ms. Astha Sharma, AOR Ms. Indira Jaising, Senior Adv. Mr. Nipun Saxena, Adv Mr. Paras Nath Singh, Adv Mr. Umang Tyagi, Adv. Ms. Serena Sharma, Adv. Ms. Mantika Haryani, Adv. Ms. Astha Sharma, AOR Mr. Amarjit Singh Chandiok, Sr. Adv. Mr. Prashant Kumar, Adv. Ms. Anindita Pujari, Adv. Mr. Amarjit Singh Bedi, AOR Mr. S. Niranjan Reddy, Sr. Adv. Mr. Mahfooz Ahsan Nazki, AOR Mr. Polanki Gowtham, Adv. Mr. Shaik Mohamad Haneef, Adv. Mr. T. Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy, Adv. Mr. Amitabh Sinha, Adv. Mr. Shrey Sharma, Adv. Mr. Yatin Oza, Sr. Adv. Mr. Purvish Jitendra Malkan, AOR Ms. Dharita Purvish Malkan, Adv. Ms. Deepa Gorasia, Adv. Mr. Alok Kumar, Adv. Ms. Neha Ambashtha, Adv. Ms. Nandini Chhabra, Adv. Ms. Bhavna Sarkar, Adv. Mr. Ranjit Kumar, Sr. Adv. Mr. Manish Kumar, AOR Mr. C.S. Vaidyanathan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Balaji Srinivasan, AOR Ms. Garima Jain, Adv Ms. Pallavi Sengupta, Adv Ms. Lakshmi Rao, Adv Mr. Aishwarya Choudhary, Adv Ms. Aakriti Priya, Adv Mr. Mohammed Shahrukh, Adv Mr. Prateek Yadav, Adv Mr. Devasish Garg, Applicant in Person Mr. Parvesh Sahib Singh Verma, Applicant in Person Mr. Anil Grover, Sr. AAG Ms. Bansuri Swaraj, AAG Dr. Monika Gusain, AOR

4 Mr. Rahul Chitnis Adv. Mr. Sachin Patil, AOR Mr. Aaditya A. Pande, Adv. Mr. Geo Joseph, Adv. Mr. M. Yogesh Kanna, AOR Mr. RajaRajeshwaran S., Adv. Mr. S. C. Verma, Adv. Gen. Chhattisgarh Mr. Sumeer Sodhi, AOR Ms. Simran Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Vikram Sharma, Adv. Mr. K.V. Jagdishvaran, Adv. Mrs. G. Indira, AOR Ms. Ruchira Gupta, Adv. Mr. Shishir Deshpande, Adv. Mr. Anurag Sharma, Adv. Mr. Abhishek Kumar Srivastava, Adv. Dr. A.P. Singh, Adv. Mr. Sadashiv, AoR Mr. V.P. Singh, Adv. Ms. Geeta Chauhan, Adv. Ms. Richa Singh, Adv. Mr. Sharwan Kumar Goyal, Adv. Mr. Jai Gopal Saboo, Adv. Mr. Purushainder Kaurav, Adv. Gen. MP Mr. Pashupati Nath Razdan, Adv. Mr. Sunny Choudhary AOR Mr. Pulkit Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Sudhanshu Kaushesh, Adv. Mr. K.P. Jayaram, Adv. Mr. Astik Gupta, Adv. Ms. Maitrayee Jagat Joshi, Adv. Mr A.D.N. Rao, AOR Mr A. Venkatesh, Adv. Mr Rahul Mishra, Adv. Ms. Ananya Khandelwal, Adv. Mr. V.N. Raghupathy, AOR Ms. Siddhesh Kotwal, Adv Ms. Manya Hasija, Adv. Ms. Ana Upadhyay, Adv. Mr. Nirnimesh Dube, AOR Mr. Pukhrambam Ramesh Kumar, AOR Ms. Anupama Ngangom, Adv.

5 Mr. Karun Sharma, Adv. Mr. Sunny Choudhary, AOR Mrs. K. Enatoli Sema, Adv. Mr. Amit Kumar Singh, Adv. Mr. Vivek Kolhi, Adv. Gen Sikkim Mr. Sameer Abhyankar, AOR Mr. Amish Tandon, Adv. Mr. Ayush Beotra, Adv. Mr. Varun Tandon, Adv . Mr. Dipin Tamang, Adv . Mr. Uddhav Khanna, Adv . Ms. Shafali Jain, Adv. Mr. Amit Kumar, Adv. Gen Meghalaya Mr. Avijit Mani Tripathi, AOR Mr. Shaurya Sahay, Adv. Mr. Chetan Joshi, Adv. Mr. G.M.Kawoosa, Adv. Ms. Taruna Ardhendumauli Prasad, AOR Mr. Parth Awasthi, Adv. Mr. Abhimanyu Tewari, AOR Ms. Eliza Bar, Adv. Ms. Garima Prashad, Sr. Adv. Mr. Abhinav Agrawal, AOR Ms. Garima Prashad, Sr. Adv/AAG Mr. Vishnu Shankar Jain, AOR Mr. Rakesh Malhotra, Adv. Mr. Tungesh, AOR Mr. Shashank Deo Sudhi, applicant-in-person Mr. Chirag M. Shroff, AOR Mr. Shibashish Misra, AOR Mr. S. Debabrata Reddy, Adv. Mr. Avnish Kumar Sharma, Adv. Mr. Jishnu M.L., Adv. Ms. Priyanka Prakash, Adv. Ms. Beena Prakash, Adv. Mr. G. Prakash, AOR Applicant-in-person

6 Dr. Manish Singhvi, Sr. Adv. Mr. Sandeep Kumar Jha, AOR Mr. Atul Nanda, Adv. Gen, Punjab Mr. Karan Bharihoke, AOR Ms. Neha Sahai Bharihoke, Adv. Mr. Siddhant Sharma, Adv. Mr. Pashupathi Nath Razdan, AOR Mr. Pradeep Kumar Yadav, Adv. Ms. Shikha Yadav, Adv. Mr. Abhay Singh Yadav, Adv. Mr. Sanjeev Malhotra, AOR Mr. Himanshu Chaubey, AOR Mr. Nitin Lonkar, Adv. Ms. Sonali Suryawanshi, Adv. Mr. Himanshu Chaubey, AOR Mr. Shibashish Misra, AOR Mr. Haris Beeran, Adv. Mr. Mushtaq Salim, Adv. Mr. Usman Ghani Khan, Adv. Mr. Azhar Asees, Adv. Ms. Pallavi Pratap, AOR Ms. Astha Sharma, AOR Ms. Manju Jetley, AOR Dr. Menaka Guruswamy, Sr. Adv. Mr. Govind Manoharan, Adv Mr. Ibad Mushtaq, Adv Ms. Aishwarya Murali, Adv Mr. Victor Das, Adv Ms. Ambika Mathur, Adv Mrs. Shally Bhasin, AOR Mr. Purvish Jitendra Malkan, AOR Dr. Ashwani Kumar, applicant in person Ms. Raushan Tara Jaswal Adv. Ms. Shobha Gupta, Adv. Ms. Medha Garg, Adv. Mr. Anurag Tomar, Adv. Mr. Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, Adv. Mr. S. Udaya Kumar Sagar, Adv. Ms. Sweena Nair, Adv.

7 Mr Arunabh Chowdhury, AAG Mr Krishnaraj Thaker, AAG Ms Pragya Baghel, Adv Mr Kumar Anurag Singh Adv Ms Pallavi Langar, AOR Mr. Devashish Bharuka, AoR Mrs. Jaya Bharuka, Adv. Mr. Ravi Bharuka, Adv. Ms. Sarvshree, Adv. Mr. Justine George, Adv. Ms. Srishti Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Ankit Agarwal, Adv. Ms. Taniya Bansal, Adv. Mr. Manoj V George, Adv. Mr. Ranjit Philip, Adv. Ms. Palak Arora, Adv. Mr. K. Panmei, Adv. Ms. Shilpa Liza George, AOR Mr. Shuvodeep Roy, AOR Ms. Diksha Rai, Adv. Ms. Ninmisha Menon, Adv. Mr. Deepak A. Masih, Adv. Ms. Manreet Kaur, Adv. Ms.Kusum, Adv. Mr. R. N. Keswani, AOR Mr. J. Sai Deepak, Adv. Mr. Guruswamy Nataraj, Adv. Mr. V. Shyamohan, Adv. Mr. Surya Prakash, Adv. For M/S KMNP LAW AOR Mr. Viplav Sharma, in-person UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R 1 In terms of the signed reportable order, we pass the following directions: (i) The UOI shall ensure, in terms of the assurance of the Solicitor General, that the deficit in the supply of oxygen to the GNCTD is rectified within 2 days from the date of the hearing, that is, on or before the midnight of 3 May 2021;

8 (ii) The Central Government shall, in collaboration with the States, prepare a buffer stock of oxygen for emergency purposes and decentralize the location of the emergency stocks. The emergency stocks shall be created within the next four days and is to be replenished on a day to day basis, in addition to the existing al - location of oxygen supply to the States; (iii) The Central Government and State Governments shall notify all Chief Secre - taries/Directors General of Police/Commissioners of Police that any clampdown on information on social media or harassment caused to individuals seeking/de - livering help on any platform will attract a coercive exercise of jurisdiction by this Court. The Registrar (Judicial) is also directed to place a copy of this order before all District Magistrates in the country; (iv) The Central Government shall, within two weeks, formulate a national policy on admissions to hospitals which shall be followed by all State Governments. Till the formulation of such a policy by the Central Government, no patient shall be de - nied hospitalization or essential drugs in any State/UT for lack of local residential proof of that State/UT or even in the absence of identity proof; (v) The Central Government shall revisit its initiatives and protocols, including on the availability of oxygen, availability and pricing of vaccines, availability of essential drugs at affordable prices and respond on all the other issues highlighted in this order before the next date of the hearing, that is, 10 May 2021. Copies of all af - davits to be served upon the Amici in advance; and (vi) Several other suggestions have been made before this Court in IAs and writ peti - tions filed by diverse parties. In order to streamline the further course of hearing, we have requested the Amici to collate and compile these suggestions which would be taken up later. The present order has focused on certain critical issues in view of the urgency of the situation.

9 2 List the petition on 10 May 2021. (SANJAY KUMAR-I) (SAROJ KUMARI GAUR) AR-CUM-PS COURT MASTER (Signed Reportable Order is placed on the file)

10 ITEM NO.301 Court 5 (Video Conferencing) SECTION PIL-W S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS SMW (C) No.3/2021 IN RE : DISTRIBUTION OF ESSENTIAL SUPPLIES AND SERVICES DURING PANDEMIC (WITH IA No. 58598/2021 - APPROPRIATE ORDERS/DIRECTIONS, IA No. 57404/2021 - APPROPRIATE ORDERS/DIRECTIONS, IA No. 58531/2021 – CLARIFICATION/DIRECTION, IA No. 57405/2021 - EARLY HEARING APPLICATION, IA No. 58424/2021 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING AFFIDAVIT, IA No. 58533/2021 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING AFFIDAVIT, IA No. 57400/2021 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING AFFIDAVIT, IA No. 58529/2021 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING AFFIDAVIT, IA No. 57607/2021 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING AFFIDAVIT, IA No. 57396/2021 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING AFFIDAVIT, IA No. 58512/2021 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING AFFIDAVIT, IA No. 57602/2021 - INTERVENTION APPLICATION, IA No. 58509/2021 - INTERVENTION APPLICATION, IA No. 58597/2021 - INTERVENTION APPLICATION, IA No. 58423/2021 - INTERVENTION APPLICATION, IA No. 57403/2021 - INTERVENTION APPLICATION, IA No. 58411/2021 - INTERVENTION APPLICATION, IA No. 58399/2021 - INTERVENTION APPLICATION, IA No. 57399/2021 - INTERVENTION APPLICATION, IA No. 58527/2021 - INTERVENTION APPLICATION, IA No. 57395/2021 – INTERVENTION/IMPLEADMENT, IA No. 58585/2021 – INTERVENTION/IMPLEADMENT, IA No. 58511/2021 - PERMISSION TO APPEAR AND ARGUE IN PERSON, IA No. 57406/2021 - PERMISSION TO APPEAR AND ARGUE IN PERSON, IA No. 57605/2021 - PERMISSION TO APPEAR AND ARGUE IN PERSON) Date : 30-04-2021 This matter was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE D.Y. CHANDRACHUD HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. NAGESWARA RAO HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT Mr. Jaideep Gupta, Sr. Adv. (A.C.) Mr. Avnish Kumar Sharma, Adv. Ms. Meenakshi Arora, Sr. Adv. (A.C.) For Petitioner(s) By Courts Motion For Respondent(s) Mr. Tushar Mehta, SG Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, ASG Mr. Rajat Nair, Adv. Mr. Kanu Agrawal, Adv. Mr. Amit Mahajan, Adv. Mr. Prashant Singh B, Adv. Mr. Raj Bahadur Yadav, AOR

11 Mr. Gurmeet Singh Makkar, AOR Mr. Tushar Mehta, SG Mr. Maninder Singh, Sr. Adv. Ms. Manisha Lavkumar, Sr. Adv. Mr. A P Mayee, AOR Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Sr. Adv. Mr. Mahendra Singh Singhvi, Adv. Gen. Mr. Amit Bhandari, Adv. Mr. Sandeep Jha, Adv. Mr. Vikas Singh, Sr. Adv. Mr. Suhaan Mukerji, Adv. Mr. Vishal Prasad, Adv. Ms. Deepeika Kalia, Adv. Mr. Nikhil Parikshith, Adv. Mr. Abhishek Manchanda, Adv. Mr. Kapish Seth, Adv. Mr. Mrityunjai Singh, Adv. Mr. Sayandeep Pahari, Adv. M/S. Plr Chambers and Co. Mr. Vikas Singh, Sr. Adv. Mr. Pradeep Kumar Rai, Sr. Adv. Ms. Mahalakshmi Pavani, Sr. Adv. Mr. Arijit Prasad, Adv. Mr. Brijender Chahar, Sr. Adv. Ms. Sonia Mathur, Sr. Adv. Mr. Vikas Pahwa, Sr. Adv. Mr. Meenesh Dubey, Adv. Ms. Ritu Bhadwaj, Adv. Mr. Anupam Mishra, Adv. Ms. Nina Gupta, Adv. Ms. K.V. Bharathi Upadhyaya, Adv. Mr. Mukesh Kumar Singh, Adv. Ms. Sasmita Tripathy, Adv. Mr. Prashant Singh, Adv. Ms. Prerna Kumari, Adv. Ms. Seema Patnaha, Adv. Ms. Nandani Gupta, Adv. Mr. Rahul Kaushik, Adv. Mr. Rahul Mehra, Sr. Adv. Mr. Satyakam, Adv. Mr. Gautam Narayan, AOR Ms. Asmita Singh, Adv. Mr. Adithya Nair, Adv. Mr. Anand Grover, Sr. Adv. Ms. Rajeshwari Hariharan, Adv Mr. R. Sathyanarayanan, Adv Ms. Nupur Kumar, Adv

12 Ms. Mantika Haryani, Adv Ms. Astha Sharma, AOR Ms. Indira Jaising, Senior Adv. Mr. Nipun Saxena, Adv Mr. Paras Nath Singh, Adv Mr. Umang Tyagi, Adv. Ms. Serena Sharma, Adv. Ms. Mantika Haryani, Adv. Ms. Astha Sharma, AOR Mr. Amarjit Singh Chandiok, Sr. Adv. Mr. Prashant Kumar, Adv. Ms. Anindita Pujari, Adv. Mr. Amarjit Singh Bedi, AOR Mr. S. Niranjan Reddy, Sr. Adv. Mr. Mahfooz Ahsan Nazki, AOR Mr. Polanki Gowtham, Adv. Mr. Shaik Mohamad Haneef, Adv. Mr. T. Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy, Adv. Mr. Amitabh Sinha, Adv. Mr. Shrey Sharma, Adv. Mr. Yatin Oza, Sr. Adv. Mr. Purvish Jitendra Malkan, AOR Ms. Dharita Purvish Malkan, Adv. Ms. Deepa Gorasia, Adv. Mr. Alok Kumar, Adv. Ms. Neha Ambashtha, Adv. Ms. Nandini Chhabra, Adv. Ms. Bhavna Sarkar, Adv. Mr. Ranjit Kumar, Sr. Adv. Mr. Manish Kumar, AOR Mr. C.S. Vaidyanathan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Balaji Srinivasan, AOR Ms. Garima Jain, Adv Ms. Pallavi Sengupta, Adv Ms. Lakshmi Rao, Adv Mr. Aishwarya Choudhary, Adv Ms. Aakriti Priya, Adv Mr. Mohammed Shahrukh, Adv Mr. Prateek Yadav, Adv Mr. Devasish Garg, Applicant in Person Mr. Parvesh Sahib Singh Verma, Applicant in Person Mr. Anil Grover, Sr. AAG Ms. Bansuri Swaraj, AAG Dr. Monika Gusain, AOR

13 Mr. Rahul Chitnis Adv. Mr. Sachin Patil, AOR Mr. Aaditya A. Pande, Adv. Mr. Geo Joseph, Adv. Mr. M. Yogesh Kanna, AOR Mr. RajaRajeshwaran S., Adv. Mr. S. C. Verma, Adv. Gen. Chhattisgarh Mr. Sumeer Sodhi, AOR Ms. Simran Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Vikram Sharma, Adv. Mr. K.V. Jagdishvaran, Adv. Mrs. G. Indira, AOR Ms. Ruchira Gupta, Adv. Mr. Shishir Deshpande, Adv. Mr. Anurag Sharma, Adv. Mr. Abhishek Kumar Srivastava, Adv. Dr. A.P. Singh, Adv. Mr. Sadashiv, AoR Mr. V.P. Singh, Adv. Ms. Geeta Chauhan, Adv. Ms. Richa Singh, Adv. Mr. Sharwan Kumar Goyal, Adv. Mr. Jai Gopal Saboo, Adv. Mr. Purushainder Kaurav, Adv. Gen. MP Mr. Pashupati Nath Razdan, Adv. Mr. Sunny Choudhary AOR Mr. Pulkit Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Sudhanshu Kaushesh, Adv. Mr. K.P. Jayaram, Adv. Mr. Astik Gupta, Adv. Ms. Maitrayee Jagat Joshi, Adv. Mr A.D.N. Rao, AOR Mr A. Venkatesh, Adv. Mr Rahul Mishra, Adv. Ms. Ananya Khandelwal, Adv. Mr. V.N. Raghupathy, AOR Ms. Siddhesh Kotwal, Adv Ms. Manya Hasija, Adv. Ms. Ana Upadhyay, Adv. Mr. Nirnimesh Dube, AOR Mr. Pukhrambam Ramesh Kumar, AOR Ms. Anupama Ngangom, Adv. Mr. Karun Sharma, Adv.

14 Mr. Sunny Choudhary, AOR Mrs. K. Enatoli Sema, Adv. Mr. Amit Kumar Singh, Adv. Mr. Vivek Kolhi, Adv. Gen Sikkim Mr. Sameer Abhyankar, AOR Mr. Amish Tandon, Adv. Mr. Ayush Beotra, Adv. Mr. Varun Tandon, Adv . Mr. Dipin Tamang, Adv . Mr. Uddhav Khanna, Adv . Ms. Shafali Jain, Adv. Mr. Amit Kumar, Adv. Gen Meghalaya Mr. Avijit Mani Tripathi, AOR Mr. Shaurya Sahay, Adv. Mr. Chetan Joshi, Adv. Mr. G.M.Kawoosa, Adv. Ms. Taruna Ardhendumauli Prasad, AOR Mr. Parth Awasthi, Adv. Mr. Abhimanyu Tewari, AOR Ms. Eliza Bar, Adv. Ms. Garima Prashad, Sr. Adv. Mr. Abhinav Agrawal, AOR Ms. Garima Prashad, Sr. Adv/AAG Mr. Vishnu Shankar Jain, AOR Mr. Rakesh Malhotra, Adv. Mr. Tungesh, AOR Mr. Shashank Deo Sudhi, applicant-in-person Mr. Chirag M. Shroff, AOR Mr. Shibashish Misra, AOR Mr. S. Debabrata Reddy, Adv. Mr. Avnish Kumar Sharma, Adv. Mr. Jishnu M.L., Adv. Ms. Priyanka Prakash, Adv. Ms. Beena Prakash, Adv. Mr. G. Prakash, AOR Applicant-in-person Dr. Manish Singhvi, Sr. Adv.

15 Mr. Sandeep Kumar Jha, AOR Mr. Atul Nanda, Adv. Gen, Punjab Mr. Karan Bharihoke, AOR Ms. Neha Sahai Bharihoke, Adv. Mr. Siddhant Sharma, Adv. Mr. Pashupathi Nath Razdan, AOR Mr. Pradeep Kumar Yadav, Adv. Ms. Shikha Yadav, Adv. Mr. Abhay Singh Yadav, Adv. Mr. Sanjeev Malhotra, AOR Mr. Himanshu Chaubey, AOR Mr. Nitin Lonkar, Adv. Ms. Sonali Suryawanshi, Adv. Mr. Himanshu Chaubey, AOR Mr. Shibashish Misra, AOR Mr. Haris Beeran, Adv. Mr. Mushtaq Salim, Adv. Mr. Usman Ghani Khan, Adv. Mr. Azhar Asees, Adv. Ms. Pallavi Pratap, AOR Ms. Astha Sharma, AOR Ms. Manju Jetley, AOR Dr. Menaka Guruswamy, Sr. Adv. Mr. Govind Manoharan, Adv Mr. Ibad Mushtaq, Adv Ms. Aishwarya Murali, Adv Mr. Victor Das, Adv Ms. Ambika Mathur, Adv Mrs. Shally Bhasin, AOR Mr. Purvish Jitendra Malkan, AOR Dr. Ashwani Kumar, applicant in person Ms. Raushan Tara Jaswal Adv. Ms. Shobha Gupta, Adv. Ms. Medha Garg, Adv. Mr. Anurag Tomar, Adv. Mr. Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, Adv. Mr. S. Udaya Kumar Sagar, Adv. Ms. Sweena Nair, Adv. Mr Arunabh Chowdhury, AAG

16 Mr Krishnaraj Thaker, AAG Ms Pragya Baghel, Adv Mr Kumar Anurag Singh Adv Ms Pallavi Langar, AOR Mr. Devashish Bharuka, AoR Mrs. Jaya Bharuka, Adv. Mr. Ravi Bharuka, Adv. Ms. Sarvshree, Adv. Mr. Justine George, Adv. Ms. Srishti Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Ankit Agarwal, Adv. Ms. Taniya Bansal, Adv. Mr. Manoj V George, Adv. Mr. Ranjit Philip, Adv. Ms. Palak Arora, Adv. Mr. K. Panmei, Adv. Ms. Shilpa Liza George, AOR Mr. Shuvodeep Roy, AOR Ms. Diksha Rai, Adv. Ms. Ninmisha Menon, Adv. Mr. Deepak A. Masih, Adv. Ms. Manreet Kaur, Adv. Ms.Kusum, Adv. Mr. R. N. Keswani, AOR Mr. J. Sai Deepak, Adv. Mr. Guruswamy Nataraj, Adv. Mr. V. Shyamohan, Adv. Mr. Surya Prakash, Adv. For M/S KMNP LAW AOR Mr. Viplav Sharma, in-person UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R 1 Order reserved. (SANJAY KUMAR-I) (SAROJ KUMARI GAUR) AR-CUM-PS COURT MASTER

1 Reportable I N THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No.3 of 2021 IN RE: DISTRIBUTION OF ESSENTIAL SUPPLIES AND SERVICES DURING PANDEMIC .

2 O R D E R This order has been divided into the following sections to facilitate analysis: A Introduction B Outline of the Disaster Management Act C Medical Infrastructure C.1 Submissions in UOI’s Affidavits C.2 National Policy for Admission in Hospitals D Oxygen allocation and availability E Vaccines E.1 Vaccine capacity and disbursal E.2 Vaccine pricing F Potentiality of Compulsory Licensing for vaccines and essential drugs G Supply of Essential Drugs G.1 Submissions in the Central Government’s Affidavits G.2 Recommendations G.3 Black Marketing H Recommendations for augmenting healthcare workforce I Epilogue J Conclusion

PART A 3 A Introduction 1 The genesis of this suo mot u writ petition is in an order dated 22 April 2021 . T his Court took note of the unprecedented humanitarian crisis in the country, following the outbreak of the COVID - 19 pandemic . N otices were issued to the Union of India 1 , the Governments of the States and Union Territories 2 , and to several petitioners who were before the High Courts. The Court observed : “the Union Government, the State Governments/Union Territories and the parties, who appear ed to have approached the High Courts to show cause why uniform orders be not passed by this Court in relation to a) Supply of oxygen; b) Supply of essential drugs; c) Method and manner of vaccination; and d) Declaration of lockdown” T he Court directed t he Central Government to : “1. Report on the existence or otherwise and requirement of setting up of a coordinating body that would consider allocation of the above resources in a consultative manner (with the involvement of concerned States and Union Terr itories). 2. Consider declaration of essential medicines and medical equipment including the above articles as essential commodities in relation to COVID. 3. In respect of coordination of logistical support for inter - State and i ntra - State transportation a nd distribution of the above resources.” 2 The Court also had appointed an Amicus C ur i ae to assist it. Howeve r, the Amicus Cur i ae was , on his request , r elieved of his position on 23 April 2021. Hearings in the matter were then conducted on 27 April 2021, where the Court appointed two new Amic i: Mr Jaideep Gupta and Ms Meenakshi Arora, learned Senior Counsel. They will be assisted by Mr Kunal Chatterjee an d Mr Mohit Ram, 1 “ UOI ”, referred interchangeably as “ Central Government ” 2 Collectively referred as “ State Government ”

PART A 4 learned counsel and Advocate - on - Record. The Court began the hearing by noting that the jurisdiction it assumed under Article 32 did not automatically lead to the erosion of a High Court‟s jurisdiction under Article 226. Rather, the Court st ressed on the importance of the jurisdiction under Article 226, and how High Courts may be better equipped to deal with issues within their own States. However, this Court assumed jurisdiction over issues in relation to COVID - 19 which traverse beyond state boundaries and affect the nation in its entirety. 3 The Court noted that it was in receipt of an affidavit dated 23 April 2021 filed by the UOI . However, the Court directed the UOI to file an additional affidavit and the respective gov ernments of the States/Union Territories to file fresh affidavits on four issues . The relevant extract of the order reads thus : “ (i) Supply of oxygen – The Court should be apprised by the Union of India on (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 aff ected 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, includin g 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;

PART A 5 (iii) The steps taken to ensure due availability of essential drugs, including Remdesivir and Favipiravir among other prescribed dru gs 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 e ff ectively monitored on a daily basis. (iv) Vaccination (a) Presently two vaccinations ha ve been made available in the country, namely, Covishield and Covaxin; (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 person s 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 th e 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 o lder 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 st ates 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 di ff erential pricing in regard to vaccines sourced by the Union government on one hand and the states on the other hand when both sour ces lead to the distribution of vaccines to citizens.” 4 This Court then received an additional affidavit dated 29 April 2021 from the UOI, and fresh affidavits by the various States/UTs addressing the four issues mentioned in its order dated 27 April 2021. In the hearing conducted on 30 April 2021, this Court heard submissions by Mr Tushar Mehta, learned Solicitor

PART A 6 General of India, who was appearing on behalf of the Central Government . Several other c ounsel s have made brief interje ctions, including Mr Vikas Singh, Senior Counsel and President of the Supreme Court Bar Association. T his Court also heard a presentation on oxygen supply in India by Ms Sumita Da wr a, Additional Secretary, Department of Promotion of Industry and Internatio nal Trade, Ministry of Commerce and Industry. As such, unless specified otherwise, the directions and observations in the present order are limited to the UOI. 5 During the course of the hearing, this Court directed that the individual States/UTs shall be given an opportunity to discuss their affidavits at a later hearing. Further, the Court also directed the learned Amic i to prepare a tabular compilation in relation to all the Interlocutory Applications which have been filed in this pet ition. On the basis of the issues raised, they shall also be considered in a later hearing. Before delving into a substantive discussion, we would like to clarify that the jurisdiction exercised in this matter is merely to facilitate a dialogue of relevant stakeholders , the UOI , the States and this Court, in light of the pressing humanitarian crisis, and not with a view to usurp the role of the executive and the le gislature. This bounded - deliberative approach 3 is exercised so that the UOI and S tates can justify the rationale behind their policy approach which must be bound by the human rights framework which presently implicates the right to life under Article 21 an d right to equality under Article 14 of the Constitution . 3 Sandra Fredman, “Adjudication as Accountability: A Deliberative Approach” in Nicholas Bamforth and Peter Leyland ( eds), Accountability in the Contemporary Constitution ( Oxford University Press, 2013)

PART B 7 B Outline of the Disaster Management Act 6 The Disaster Management Act, 2005 4 came into effect on 26 December 2005. The DMA provides for the effective management of disasters and matters connected or incidental to such disasters. COVID - 19 falls under the definition of a disaster under Section 2(d) 5 of the DMA and the provisions of the DMA were invoked for the first time to deal with the present pandemic. Under Section 6(2)(i) of the DMA, the National Disaster Management Authority 6 issued an order dated 24 March 2020 directing the Ministries, U O I , State/ UTs and their authorities to t ake effective measures to prevent the spread of COVID - 19 in the country. Thereafter, the Home Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs as the Chairperson of the National Executive Committee , which assists the NDMA in its functions, in an order dated 24 March 2020 issued guidelines for the initial 21 days ‟ lockdown on account of COVID - 19. 7 Section 2(e) defines disaster management as a continuous and integrated process of planning, organi z ing, coordinating and implementing measures in relation to the disaster. Section 2(e) provides: “2… (e)"disaster management" means a continuous and integrated process of planning, organi z ing, coordinating and implementing measures' which are necessary or expedient for -- (i) prevention of danger or threat of any disaster; (ii) m itigation or reduction of risk of any disaster or its' severity or consequences; (iii) capacity - building; 4 “ DMA ” 5 ““2…(d) "disaster" means a catastrophe, mishap, calamity or grave occurrence in any area, arising from natural or man - made causes, or by accident or negligence which results in substantial loss of life or human suffering or damage to, and destruction of, property, or damage to, or degradation of, environment, and is of such a nature or magnitude as to be beyond the coping capacity of the community of the affected area;” 6 “ NDMA ”

PART B 8 (iv) preparedness to deal with any disaster; (v) prompt response to any threatening disaster situation or disaster; (vi) assessing the severity or ma gnitude of effects of any disaster; (vii) evacuation, rescue and relief; (viii) rehabilitation and reconstruction;..” Section 2(n) of DMA defines a “National Plan” as the plan for disaster management for the whole country prepared under Section 11 of DMA. Section 3 of the DMA constitutes the NDMA with the Prime Minister as the Chairperson, ex officio . Section 6 lists down the powers and functions of the NDMA. Under Section 6(2)(b), NDMA has the power to approve the National Plan. Section 11 of the DMA prov ides the procedure for drawing up and implementation of the National Plan in the following terms: “11. National Plan (1) There shall be drawn up a plan for disaster management for the whole of the country to be called the National Plan. (2) The National Pl an shall be prepared by the National Executive Committee having regard to the National Policy and in consultation with the State Governments and expert bodies or organisations in the field of disaster management to be approved by the National Authority. (3 ) The National Plan shall include -- (a) measures to be taken for the prevention of disasters, or the mitigation of their effects; (b) measures to be taken for the integration of mitigation measures in the development plans; (c) measures to be taken for preparedness and capacity building to effectively respond to any threatening disaster situations or disaster; (d) roles and responsibilities of different Ministries or Departments of the Government of India in respect of measures specified in clauses (a), (b) and (c). (4) The National Plan shall be reviewed and updated annually. (5) Appropriate provisions shall be made by the Central Government for financing the measures to be carried out under the National Plan. (6) Copies of the National Plan referred to in sub - sections (2) and (4) shall be made available to the Ministries or Departments of the Government of India and such Ministries

PART B 9 or Departments shall draw up their own plans in accordance with the National Plan.” 8 A National Plan includes, inter alia , measures for disaster prevention, mitigation, preparedness and roles and responsibilities of different Ministries in terms of Section 11(3) of DMA. A National Plan for the entire country was prepared in the year 2016 a nd was revised and notified in November, 2019. The National Plan, 2019 provides a framework to the Government agencies to deal with different aspects of disaster management. Section 11(4) of the DMA provides that the National Plan is to be revised and upda ted annually making it a „dynamic document‟ . The executive summary of the National Plan succinctly captures its purpose and contours in the below extract: “...The National Disaster Management Plan (NDMP) provides a framework and direction to the government agencies for all phases of disaster management cycle. The NDMP is a “dynamic document” in the sense that it will be periodically improved keeping up with the emerging global best practices and knowledge base in disaster management. It is in accordance wit h the provisions of the DM Act, 2005, the guidance given in the National Policy on Disaster Management (NPDM) 2009, and the established national practices...” 9 Section 12 of the DMA empowers the NDMA to recommend guidelines for the minimum standard of reli ef to be provided to persons affected by disaster. NDMA can create guidelines stipulating minimum standards of relief for providing ex gratia assistance on account of loss of life and restoration of means of livelihood in terms of Section 12(iii) of DMA. I n light of the human suffering and loss of livelihood that has accompanied this pandemic, NDMA may consider laying down minimum standards of relief in this regard. We clarify that this is not

PART B 10 a direction of this Court, however a suggestion that can be look ed into by the NDMA. Under Section 12(iv) of the DMA, the NDMA has been given wide powers to provide guidelines for any such relief that may be necessary. 10 In addition to the above provisions, Section 35 of the DMA empowers the Central Government to take me asures which it deems to be necessary or expedient for the purpose of disaster management. Section 35(2)(a) provides for coordination of actions between the Central Government and State Governments and their respective authorities in relation to disaster m anagement. Section 35(2)(e) obliges the Central Government to assist and cooperate with the State Governments as requested by them or otherwise deemed appropriate by it. 11 Section 36 of DMA provides for the responsibilities that have to be undertaken by the Ministries or Departments of the Central Government. While Section 36(h) empowers the Central Government to take any actions that it may consider necessary for disaster management, Section 36(d) specifically enables it to review its policies with a view t o incorporate provisions necessary for prevention of disaster, mitigation or preparedness. Under Section 36(f), it is the responsibility of every Ministry or Department of Central Government to provide assistance to the State Governments for (i) drawing up mitigation, preparedness and response plans, capacity - building, data collection and identification and training of personnel in relation to disaster management; (iii) carrying out rescue and relief operations in the affected area; (iii) assessing the dama ge from any disaster; and (iv) carrying out rehabilitation and reconstruction. Section 35(g) provides that the Central Government is responsible for making available its resources to the National Executive Committee or a State Executive Committee

PART B 11 for the p urposes of, inter alia , transporting personnel and relief goods to and from the affected area. 12 The provisions of Sections 35 and 36 of the DMA that have been discussed above have been enacted in the spirit of cooperative federalism in order to ensure that Central Government can assist and enable the State Governments to effectively tackle the disaster in question. 13 The learned Solicitor General has submitted that the Central Government is operating under the broad framework of the National Plan and the plan is already in force. The plan specifically deals with “Biological and Public Health Emergencies”. Further, different States have their own Disaster Management Plans in place. It has been submitted that the National Plan does not and cannot contain step by step instructions or specific directions for the day to day management of the pandemic by the Government agencies. Such aspects are kept open for executive decision, in view of the dynamic nature of the disaster in question. Furt her, since COVID - 19 is a novel virus, the knowledge in relation to such a virus is contemporaneous in nature and is subject to constant development. A three Judge bench of t his Court in its judgement in Centre for Public Interest Litigation vs Union of Ind ia 7 had noted that there was no need to develop a fresh National Plan under Section 11 for COVID - 19 since a National Plan was already in place, which was being supplemented by various orders and measures taken by competent authorities under DMA. Justice As hok Bhushan, speaking for this Court , observed that: 7 2020 SCC OnLine SC 652

PART C 12 “ 40 . The Disaster Management Act, 2005 contain ample powers and measures, which could be taken by the National Disaster Management Authority, National Executive Committee and Central Government to prepare further plans, guidelines and Standard Operating Procedure (SOPs), which in respect to COVID - 19 had been done from time to time. Containment Plan for Novel Coronavirus, 2019 had been issued by Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of In dia. There were no lack of guidelines, SOPs and Plan to contain COVID - 19, by Nodal Ministry had been brought on record issued by Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India, i.e., Updated Containment Plan for Large Outbreaks Novel Coronaviru s Disease, 2019 (COVID - 19).” 14 Therefore, the National Plan, 2019 can be supplemented by the issuance of additional guidelines to tackle any aspect of disaster management including the issue of admission to hospitals and access to essential drugs and vaccin es in respect of C OVID - 19. C Medical Infrastructure C.1 Submissions in UOI’s Affidavits 15 In relation to the broad issue of m edical i nfrastructure , the Central Government begins its affidavit dated 23 April 2021 and additional affidavit dated 29 April 2021 by describing its „t hree - tier setup ‟ of Covid Care Centers 8 , Dedicated COVID Health Centers 9 and Dedicated COVID Hospitals 10 which was recommend ed to the States for tack l ing the COVID - 19 pandemic, for which the UOI also provided funds under a n e mergency response package from the National Health Mission and State Disaster Response Fund . 8 “ CCC ” 9 “ DCHC ” 10 “ DCH ”

PART C 13 16 The present status of these is : (i) 2,084 DCH (of which 89 are under the Central Government and the rest 1,995 with State Governments ); (ii) 4,043 DCHC ; and (iii) 12,673 CCC. Cumulatively, they have 18,52,265 beds in total, out of which 4,68,974 beds are in DCH . It was also noted that Central Government hospitals have also been converted into DCH . 17 Further, t ertiary care hospitals under ESIC, Defen c e, Railways , paramilitary forces, Steel Ministry, et al , are also being leveraged for case management. Even as many as 3816 railways coaches spread over 16 railway zones have been converted into CCC. Finally, the DRDO has also set up large field hospitals with capaci ties ranging from 1,000 to 10,000 isolation beds. 18 It was noted that through coordination between Central Government and State Governments , isolation beds (with/without oxygen) were increased to around 15.7 lakhs, as compared to 10,180 before the first lockdown; similarly, ICU beds were increased to more than 85,000, as compared to 2,168 before the first lockdown. Similar upgrades were provided to necessary equipment such as Ventilators, N95 masks and PPEs. 19 The affidavit provides the following details of the efforts taken by UOI to create projections for each State, and how it was communicated to them: (i) I t has developed an IT module for projections of expected cases based on ongoing caseload, so as to alert States and districts to be prepared in advance. T he projections by the Central Government were regularly shared in writing with the States, along with reports containing emergency

PART C 14 plans. This tool was also made available to States, to map their own projections at the State level; (ii) Details of the meetings conducted by t he Prime Minister , the Minister of H ealth and F amily W elfare , the Cabinet Secretary , the Secretary (H) and the DGHS were provided ; and (iii) Details of letters (which seem to have been sent on a monthly basis) sent by the Central Government to the State Governments indicate that the y informed the State Governments of the projected cases for the coming month, along with the number of O x ygen Supported Bed s , ICU Beds and of Ventilators that will be required to mana ge the projected cases. Thereby, the State Governments which were found lacking in their numbers were directed to ramp up their facilities. 20 In relation to the preparedness for the second wave of the COVID - 19 pandemic, the affidavits state that : (i) After the f irst wave, the Central Government has been consistently writing to the State Governments from 4 December 202 0 with numbers of projected cases, along with the directions requiring them to arrange the necessary infrastructure which will be needed ; (ii) State Governments were requested by the UOI to formulate a comprehensive plan in relation to: (a) B ed capacities, ICU beds, further identification of additional hospitals, preparation of field hospital facilities, ensuring sufficient oxygen supported beds and oxyge n supplies ;

PART C 15 (b) D eployment of requisite HR training and mentoring of doctors and nurses for management of patients, strengthen ambulance services and centralized call center - based services for allocation of beds ; (c) S uitable initiatives for (among other things) achieving and maintaining adequate level of testing, surveillance and risk communication for promoting wearing of masks, physical distancing, hand hygiene ; (d) S ufficient referral linkages for districts with deficit infrastructure through deployment of additi onal ambulances, wherever necessary ; and (iii) On 20 April 2021, the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare 11 wrote to the State Governments with their projections and reminded them also of the funding avenues being made available to all States under NHM funding, State Disaster Response Fund, and other initiatives . 21 The affidavits also note that the Central Government had developed a live porta l with all the States and districts where they were asked to feed in their data of cases and details such as people under home isolation, on isolation beds (with or without oxygen) and on ICU beds. Further, the State Government s were also directed to feed in details of the COVID dedicated health care infrastructure created by them, besides the details of containment zones so specified by them. However, the Central Government has allege d that States and districts did not upload their data regularly enough. A dditionally, there was also a „ Facility App ‟ which could be used by Covid Health facilities to monitor their patients as well as the availability of logistics with their health facility. However, the Central 11 “ MoHFW ”

PART C 16 Government alleges that States, districts and f a cilities did not use this Facility App. C .2 National Policy for Admission in Hospitals 22 It has been submitted by the Central Government that health being a state subject, the medical infrastructure is largely created and maintained by the respective State G overnment s . Since we are yet to hear from the State Government s, we shall not be issuing any directions or making comprehensive observations in relation to this issue. 23 However, based on the affidavits submitted by the Central Government and the hearings which followed, we have come to understand that there is no national policy on how admissions must take place in the various tiers of hospitals (CCC, DCHC and DCH). G aining admission into a hospital with a bed is one of the biggest challe nges being faced by m ost individuals during this second wave of the COVID - 19 pandemic . Left to their own devices, citizens have had to suffer immeasurable hardship. Different states and local authorities follow their own protocols. Differing standards for admission in different hospitals across the nation leads to chaos and uncertainty. The situation cannot brook any delay. Accordingly, we direct the Central Government to frame a policy in this regard, in exercise of its statutory powers under the DMA, whic h will be followed nationally. The presence of such a policy shall ensure that no one in need i s turned away from a hospital, due to no fault of their own. Such a policy should, inter alia , address the following issues in relation to admission:

PART C 17 (i) Requirement of a positive test for COVID - 19 virus, which may become difficult for many individuals since testing facilities are overwhelmed, test results are taking inordinately long time and the new strain of the COVID - 19 virus is sometimes not even picked up by a r egular RT - PCR test; (ii) Some patients are being refused service based on arbitrary factors. For example, the hospitals in Ahmedabad were initially refusing to take in patients who did not arrive in the government - run „108‟ ambulances. While this rule has now been removed, after objections were noted by the Gujarat High Court during hearings in a suo mot u public interest litigation 12 , we note that such rules cannot be allowed to c rop up in other places; (iii) Some reports have also been brought to our attention that h ospitals are refusing to admit individuals who cannot produce a valid ID card which shows that they belong to the city where the hospital is located. Given how overstretched our hospitals are during the second wave of the COVID - 19 pandemic, it is entirely plausible that individuals may travel to other cities in desperation, since beds may not be available in their city. The rural health infrastructure is seriously deficient. Hence, no hospital should be allowed to deny them entry solely based on this reason or any other issues with identity proofs ; (iv) A related issue is when individuals often get their family member admitted in a hospital in one city, but have to travel to another city to look for oxygen or essential drugs and are denied their use because they are to be bought 12 Suo Motu vs State of Gujarat , R/Writ Petition (PIL) No 53 Of 2021

PART C 18 for an individual admitted in a different city. As was true for the above such rule, this is also unacceptable and should not be allowed; (v) Admissions to hospital must be b ased on need. The Central G overnment , in consultation with the respective State Government s , must formulate guidelines on the stage at which hospitalization is required so as to ensure that scarce hospital beds are not occupied by persons who do not need h ospitalization . This aspect should be based on the advice of medical experts and can be suitably altered given the needs of each State (or regions within the State) and in the course of the experiences gained during the p andemic; and (vi) D irections are hereby issued to all S tates, U nion T erritories, and all public agencies, to ensure that the above orders are implemented forthwith . The Central, S tate and U nion Territory governments shall issue necessary orders and circulars, incorporating t he above directions, within three days, which shall be in force till replaced by an appropriate uniform policy, devised by the central government, statutorily.

PART D 19 D Oxygen allocation and availability 24 The Central Government has argued the following: (i) By its order dated 11 September 2020, the Ministry of Home Affairs 13 , in exercise of its powers under Section 10(2)(h) of the DMA had constituted an Empowered Group - II as an inter - ministerial body to ensure availability of essential medical equipment and ox ygen management; (ii) Medical oxygen is critical to treatment of COVID affected patients. The entire available capacity of oxygen is used for supply for industrial and medical use, which is in the form of Liquid Medical Oxygen 14 . The major suppliers for both in dustrial and medical oxygen are steel plants in the public and private sectors, and private entities; (iii) Oxygen is not produced evenly in India. While some States may be oxygen producing States such as Maharashtra, Rajasthan and Jharkhand ; other States/UTs s uch as Delhi, Goa and Madhya Pradesh, do not have production capacity and rely on supply of oxygen from oxygen producing States; (iv) For an estimation of the required oxygen supply, an Empowered Group I was constituted which categorized patients into three ca tegories:  Class I comprising of 80% of the cases which are mild and do not require oxygen; 13 “ MHA ” 14 “ LMO ”

PART D 20  Class II comprising of 17% cases which are moderate and can be managed on non - ICU beds and 50% of these may require oxygen @10L/min; and  Class III comprising of 3% of cases which are severe ICU cases requir ing approximately 24L/min oxygen . (v) On the basis of the categorization provided by Empowered Group I, oxygen requirement of different States on the basis of active cases is being calculated which is around 8462 MT. B ased on the trend of active cases, the “doubling rate of cases” is calculated for each State, which implies, the number of days in which COVID cases are likely to double. The number of active cases are projected on the basis of the doubling rate and oxygen requirement is calculated. These projections get changed daily on the basis of real time change ; (vi) In order to ensure supply of oxygen to all States, a mapping exercise of the sources of supplies with the demand of medical oxygen to the critically affected States was undertaken jointly by the Department of Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade, MoHFW , Ministry of Steel, Petroleum and Explosives Safety Organisation, oxygen manufacturers etc. During the course of the mapping exercise, States were requested to indicate their project ions for requirement of medical oxygen based on expected active case load. These projections were to be given as on 20 April, 25 April, and 30 April 2021. The following was the forecast provided by the major States:

PART D 21 (vii) Based on these projections, an indicative mapping framework was drawn up and approved by an order dated 15 April 2021, which provided the name of the supply point, the State to which supply was allocated and the quantity to be supplied. Subsequently, due t o continuous changes in the number of cases and the need for medical oxygen, a revised projection was issued by States for 20 April 2021, which provided:

PART D 22 (viii) Following this, a revised supply plan for medical oxygen to 15 States for meeting their demand was issued by an order dated 18 April 2021. Certain States, such as Delhi, Rajasthan, Punjab, Uttar Pradesh, Uttarakhand and Madhya Pradesh, faced challenges des pite this allocation. Issues such as logistical bottlenecks in transportation, incidents of local authorities in disrupting supplies to other states were reported. Due to this, allocation orders were further amended by orders dated 21 April 2021, 22 April 2021, 24 April 2021, 25 April 2021 and 26 April 2021. The MHA also issued orders dated 22 April 2021 and 25 April 2021 under the DMA to direct States/UTs to ensure uninterru pted movement of medical oxygen; (ix) The major principles on the basis of which the am endments were made were to: ( a ) ensure that projected requirement of LMO is allocated as far as possible; ( b ) allocate sources located within the State or closest to the State while balancing requirements from States which have no/low internal

PART D 23 manufacturing capacity; ( c ) ensure feasible transportation; ( d ) ensure minimum disrupt ions in existing supply chains; (x) As an instance, the allocation summary for 28 April 2021 has been placed on record: (xi) After the Central Government procures and allocat es the quantity of medical oxygen to each State, it is the State Government‟s responsibility to arrange transportation to pick up their allotted quantity from the supply point; (xii) Given the fact that the mapping exercise has to be continuously updated accordi ng to the need of the situation across States, the Central Government also put in an interactive mechanism called the “Virtual Central Control Room” consisting of senior officers of Additional/Joint Secretary rank to monitor and find solutions to any probl ems that may arise on a real time basis. We have been apprised that the daily allocation of the

PART D 24 supply of oxygen is sanctioned and uploaded on this virtual room, in which the Chief Secretarie s of all States/UTs are members; (xiii) In addition to the management o f supply and demand of medical oxygen, the Central Government has also taken the following steps to ensure augmentation of supply in the country: (a) Licenses to industrial gas manufacturers: By an order dated 7 April 2020, the Drug Controller General of Indi a 15 allowed licenses to be issued to industrial gas manufacturers for manufacturing medical oxygen within 24 hours of receipt of t he application by DCGI ; (b) Enhanced production of LMO in steel plants and by private manufacturers : Steps have been taken to reduce production of other liquid products which are required for manufacturing steel (such as argon and nitrogen) and enhance the capacity of liquid oxygen. This has resulted in immediate enhancement of 293 MT. Additionally, the steel s ector has made available the liquid oxygen in its storage tanks (approx. 16,000 MT as on 21 April 2021). Supplies have increased from 1000 MT in the first week of April 2021 to 2600 MT on 21 April 2021 . Moreover, private m anufacturers have also enhanced pr oduction of medical oxygen; (c) Restrictions on use of industrial oxygen: By an order dated 18 April 2021, the M o HFW restricted industrial use of oxygen. Supply of oxygen for al l industrial use was completely prohibited on 21 April 2021, except for certain ind ustries such as ampoules and vials; pharmaceuticals; 15 “ DCGI ”

PART D 25 petroleum refineries; nuclear energy facilities; and oxygen cylinder manufacturers. These have added 1000 MT of additional oxygen ; (d) Augmentation in availability of tankers: India has 1224 oxygen tankers (16732 MT capacity) and efforts are being made to increase this capacity to 2000 tankers through conversion of nitrogen and argon tankers and import of 138 cryogenic tankers ; (e) Commissioning of PSA plants: Pressure Swing Absorptio n 16 is a technology to generate oxygen at a local level. PSA plants established in hospitals enable self - sufficiency in generation of oxygen. M o HFW is in the process of commissioning 162 PSA Plants (154 MT capacity). The following statistics have been furnishe d : Number of plants installed: 38 Number of plants to be installed by 30 April 2021 21 Number of plants to be installed by 31 May 2021 105 Number of plants to be installed by 30 June 2021 17 51 Number of PSA Plants for district headquarters (under planning) 500 (f) Import of medical oxygen: A global tender was floated to import 50,000 MT of medical oxygen to be supplied in 90 days and quotations have been received. As an interim measure, quotations from bidders were called within 24 hours as to the quantities they could offer, prices etc. Ord ers have been placed with 2 foreign suppliers, i.e., SSB Cryogenic Equipment Ltd. for 200 MT and Gulf Industrial Gases Abu 16 “ PSA ” 17 As per the affidavit dated 23 April 2021, the U O I has stated that “a further 105 plants will be installed by 31.05.2021 and thereafter increasing to 156 plants by 30.06.2021.”

PART D 26 Dhabi for 1800 MT. Another order is also being placed with M/s Ultra - Pure Gases India for import of 500 - 1500 MT ; (g) Augmentation of availability of cylinders: 1,02,400 oxygen cylinders were procured in April and May 2020 and distributed to States. Orders for additional 1,27,000 cylinders were placed on 21 April 2021. The Central Government proposes to address the additi onal demand through regulated portable oxygen system technology ; (h) Setting up of jumbo container based COVID hospitals using gaseous oxygen : Apart from LMO, the gaseous oxygen production capacity in the steel sector is 43,000 MT per day against which 26,000 MT per day is being produced. Two private entities, AMNS and JSW are setting up “J umbo ” COVID centres with 1000 bed oxygen facilities in Hazira, Vijayanagar and Dolvi using gaseous oxygen ; and (i) Transportation by Air & Rail: Railways are being used for long distance transport of tankers through „ roll on roll off ‟ service and an “Oxygen Express” - a double engine train which gets a green corridor - is being run from supply point to destination. As an instance, the first rake with 7 empty tankers reached Mumba i from Vizag to transport 105 MT from RINL Vizag to Kalamboli. In addition to this, defence aircraft for carrying empty tankers to supply point are being deployed. However, it is technically not possible to bring in oxygen filed tankers in an aircraft. 25 Du ring the course of the hearing, the Solicitor General has also sought to lay down the facts and figures pertaining to production and supply of oxygen, daily supply to States and challenges faced in supply chain logistics before the

PART D 27 Court by means of a powe r point presentation. We note the submission of the Solicitor General that the figures given in the power point presentation are revised on a daily basis and that the presentation is not to be treated as a submission made on oath by the Solicitor General, which may give rise to a cause of action for litigation in future either before this Court or the High Court s . Ms Sumita Dawra, Additional Secretary, Department of Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade, Ministry of Commerce and Industry, who is one of t he senior administrative officers in charge of oxygen procurement and supply coordination , has given an overview of these issues and made a presentation before us. W e would like to record our appreciation for the contribution made by Ms Dawra and her team, who despite being infected by the COVID - 19 virus, has continued to work and manage the supply of medical oxygen that the country so desperately needs today. It is through the earnest contribution of officers such as Ms Dawra, who are working round the clo ck, that the country is able to deal with the storm created by one of the worst humanitarian crises we have seen. 26 Based on the above facts and figures, the Solicitor General has stated that there is no dearth of oxygen supply in the country as on date and steps are being taken continuously to augment the supply of oxygen. Having said that, the Solicitor General has also admitted that there has been a shortage of supply to certain States and has attributed this shortage to various factors including the fail ure of State Government s to lift the allocated quantity of oxygen from the supply point; transportation bottlenecks caused by inter - State movement of tankers; and technical failure of certain plants leading to reassessment of allocation on a real time basi s.

PART D 28 27 Submissions have also been made on the issue of supply of oxygen by Mr Rahul Mehra, learned Senior C ounsel appearing for the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi 18 . Mr Rahul Mehra submits that the GNCTD is facing an acute shortage of the su pply of oxygen as it had been allocated a substantially l ower quantity of oxygen as against its projected demand. Mr Mehra pointed out that initially as on 15 April 2021, the projected demand of GNCTD for 20 April 2021 was 300 MT/day, for 25 April 2021 it was 349 MT/day, and for 30 April 2021 it was 445 MT/day. However, due to a surge in cases, the projected demand was revised by GNCTD on 18 April 2021 to 700MT/day and th is was immediately communicated to the Central Government. Despite the increase in proj ected demand, the supply of oxygen to GNCTD has continued in terms of the allocation order dated 25 April 2021, in which 490 MT/day were allocated. As against this as well, the manufacturers have only been able to supply 445 MT/day. Mr Mehra has clarified that as on the date of the hearing their demand was 700MT/day, however the ir projected demand for the coming days is stated to be 976 MT/day as the GNCTD has planned an increase in medical infrastructure, including beds with oxygen cylinders and beds for patients in intensive care unit. 28 Opposing his submission, the Solicitor General and Ms Dawra stated that no revised projections have been received from GNCTD till date. The Solicitor General has also sought to highlight that the government of GNC TD has failed to offtake the allocated quantity of oxygen from the supply point. 29 Having heard the submissions of both counsel s on the issues pertaining to supply of oxygen to GNCTD, we note that the Central Government (on page 63) 18 “ GNCTD ”

PART D 29 in its affidavit dated 2 3 April 2021 has admitted that the projected demand for GNCTD as of 20 April 2021 had increased by 133% from 300 MT/day to 700 MT/day. A ccording to the figures of allocation given in the affidavit dated 23 April 2021 and the presentation given by Ms Dawr a , the existing allocation of GNCTD remains at 490 MT/day. This situation must be remedied forthwith. The situation on the ground in Delhi is heart rending. Recriminations between the Central Government (which contends that GNCTD has not lifted its allocate d quantity) and GNCTD (which contends that despite its projected demand the quantity allocated has not been enhanced) can furnish no solace to citizens whose lives depend on a thin thread of oxygen being available. On the intervention of the Court during t he hearing, the Solicitor General states that he has instructions to the effect that GNCTD‟s demand of medical oxygen will be met and that the national capital will not suffer due to lack of oxygen . We issue a peremptory direction in those terms. In the ba ttle of shifting responsibility of supplying/off - taking of oxygen, lives of citizens cannot be put in jeopardy . The protection of the lives of citizens is paramount in times of a national crisis and the responsibility falls on both the Central Government a nd the GNCTD to cooperate with each other to ensure that all possible measures are taken to resolve the situation . Learned Senior C ounsel for GNCTD has assured the court after taking instructions at the „highest‟ level that the issue will be resolved compl etely in a spirit of co - operation. During the course of the hearing, the Solicitor General has assured that henceforth he will ensure that the deficit of oxygen is rectified and supply is made to the GNCTD a ccording to their projected demand (which may be revised in the future) on a day by day basis . We accept his submission and

PART D 30 direct compliance within 2 days from the date of the hearing, that is, on or before midnight of 3 M a y 2021. 30 With regard to the issue of the supply and availability of medical oxygen for the entire country, we have noted that efforts are being made to augment the availability of oxygen. While the Central and State Governments are in the process of managing the su pply of oxygen, at the same time, it is critical that a buffer emergency stock of oxygen is created so that in the event that the supply chain is disrupted to any one or more hospitals in an area for any reason, the buffer or emergency stocks can be used t o avoid loss of human lives. These emergency stocks must be so distributed so as to be easily accessible without delay in every local area. We have also seen the situation that has developed in the last 24 hours in Delhi where patients, including among the m medical professionals, died because of the disruption of supplies and the time lag in the arrival of tankers. This deficit shall be rectified immediately by the Central Government by creating buffer stocks and collaborating with the States through the vi rtual control room on a 24 by 7 basis. In view of the deaths which are being caused daily by the disruption of supplies, this direction is more crucial than ever. We therefore, direct the Central Government in collaboration with the States to prepare a buf fer stock of oxygen to be used for emergency purposes to ensure supply lines continue to function even in unforeseen circumstances. The location of the emergency stocks shall be decentralised so as to be immediately available if the normal supply chain is disrupted to any hospital for any reason. The emergency stocks shall be created within the next four days. The replenishment of the emergency stocks will also be monitored on a real time basis through the

PART D 31 virtual control room in active consultation with ea ch state/UT. This is in addition to the day to day allocations. 31 In addition to the above , we direct the Central Government to consider the following suggestions, which may assist in increasing the availability of oxygen and ensure transparency of demand - su pply management, and provide a clarification to this Court: (i) We understand that the Virtual Central Control Room of the Central Government displays the allocation of supply of oxygen by the Central Government to each State/UT. By extension of this, a mecha nism for displaying real time updates of supply of oxygen from each State to hospitals in each district, along with the remaining stock of oxygen with the hospitals may be maintained and shared with the citizens to ensure transparency. This will also ensur e that citizens can easily identify the hospitals where medical aid can be availed ; (ii) T he government shall clarify the steps being taken on planning on the use of oxygen concentrators to reduce the demand of LMO, such that LMO is needed only for critical pa tients . A comprehensive plan on augmenting the production/import of these oxygen concentrators may be considered ; (iii) T he expected supply of oxygen/containers to be received from outside India should be suitably augmented to cater to anticipated increases in the demand and shortfall of domestic availability. Pending the early finalization of the global tender a decision may be taken on the need to continue imports to bridge the gap in availability; and

PART D 32 (iv) A review shall be made of any restrictions on inter - State travel of trucks or tankers carrying oxygen/other medical aid equipment (such as GST related issues, documentation) which might cause a hindrance in their movement . The Central G overnment may consider implementing a system t o track and map the supply tankers which would allow better management of resources and allow diversion of resources from one State to the other in case of emergencies .

PART E 33 E Vaccines 32 T he previous order of this Court dated 27 April 2021 directed the Central Government to clarify , inter alia : (i) the projected availability of vaccines and proposed steps to boost supply and dis tribution ; and ( ii ) the vaccine pricing and distribution among states . Upon perus ing the affidavits filed by the Central Government and after having the benefit of oral arguments of the Solicitor General , we have arrived at the following understanding on the t wo broad issues outlined abo v e. We would once again re - iterate that we do not attempt to delve into the role of the e xecutive in designing policy choices. We are merely seeking to enter into a dialogue with the relevant stakeholders in order to ensure probity and transparency of the measures underway. We are cognizant that it is ultimately up to the e xecutive to frame and implement policies that it deems appropriate , with the topmost regard to public interest. E .1 Vaccine capacity and disbursal 33 The Central Government has apprised us of its constitut ion of a National Expert Group on Vaccine Administration for COVID - 19 19 on 7 August 2020 and operationalization of the immunization programme from December 2020. It was further stated that as of 26 April 2021, over 13.5 crore vaccine doses (approx. 9% of the Indian population) have been administered to Frontline Workers, Healthcare Workers and persons who are 45 years of age and higher in the 3 Phases of immunization . It was submitted that these vaccines have been 19 “ NEGVAC ”

PART E 34 centrally procured and adm inistered free of cost to the abovementioned groups who were identified based on specific vulnerabilities and a higher mortality rate on account of the COVID - 19 infection. 34 On 20 April 2021, the Central Government rolled out a revised strategy of COVID - 19 vaccination for all persons over 18 years of age , with effect from 1 May 2021 . This new age group consists of approximately 59 crore people, which would require 122 crore vaccine doses under t he current two - dose vaccine regime of Covishield and Covaxin whi ch ha ve been authorized for emergency use in India . This revised strategy enables vaccine procurement by S tate G overnments and private hospitals , purportedly for accelerating the immunization programme which is critical to curb the pandemic . In response to the query of this Court on the necessity of the revised strategy , the Central Government furnished the following justification: “During the ongoing consultation with the states, demands/concerns were raised by the various State Governments to expand the scope of vaccination drive to include the beneficiaries beyond the priority groups identified by NEGVAC as approved by Central Government. As a matter of co - operative federalism, it was felt necessary to allow play in the joints and to de - ce ntralize vaccine procurement and to enable the States to expand vaccination drives to other groups between the age of 18 - 44 years. However, since the priority group as identified by Union of India (which had more vulnerability) was not fully vaccinated, it was considered imperative to carry out two drives separately i.e. in a decentralized manner to achieve higher efficiency and reach. Thus the States were given a participatory role to undertake the procurement of vaccine and for vaccination of any other ‘groups identified drive’ for the 18 - 44 age group. This would also keep the existing drive of critical groups unobstructed as the 50 pe rcent of the vaccines procured through the GoI channel would continue to support and provide free of cost vaccine to the most vulnerable age groups of 45 years plus in the country health care workers and frontline worker

PART E 35 identified by the Union of India wh o were entitled to ge t vaccinated under Phase II.” (emphasis supplied) 35 In response to the que ries of the Court on how the supplies of vaccines will be allocated between various states if each S tate Government is to negotiate with vaccine producers, the Central Government has furnished the following justification in order to iron out the inequities between S tates: “ For the remaining 50% non - government of India channel, the states and the private hospitals are free to procure vaccine for 18 - 44 years population, however, to have an equitable distribution of vaccine across the country, states have been allocated the available vaccine quantity in proportion to the population between 18 - 44 years of age of the respective state so as to ensure equitable dis tribution of vaccine as there is a possibility of some states having better bargaining power due to geographical advantage etc. ” (emphasis supplied) 36 During the course of the hearing, this Court has expressed its reservations prima facie on the validity of the revised policy under which the states and private hospitals are to procure 50% of the vaccines in order to immunize persons in the 18 - 44 years age group. For one thing, even this age group would consist of persons who suffer from vulne rabilities. Once the vaccination programme has been opened up for persons other than the 45 plus age group, it would not be logical to impose the obligation to source vaccinations for the 18 - 44 age group on the State Government s. This will , inter alia , lea ve each State Government to negotiate supply schedules, delivery points and other logistical arrangements with the manufacturers. At present, there are only two manufacturers for the authorized vaccines (with one other vaccine - Sputnik V, in the process o f

PART E 36 manufacture) . The available stock of vaccines is not adequate to deal with the requirements of both the categories. The Central Government must take the responsibility of providing guidance to every S tate on the quantities to be supplied to each S tate, t he vaccine(s) being allocated, the period of delivery, and the number of persons who can be covered for vaccination , among other details . Leaving the S tate Government s to negotiate directly with manufacturers will produce chaos and uncertainty. The object of vaccinating the 18 - 44 age group cannot be achieved in the absence of stocks being available. 37 Besides the above issues, the Centra l Government is directed to clarify the following issues in order to ensure the protection of the fundamental rights to equality and to life and personal liberty f or all persons who will be eligible to take the vaccine from 1 May 2021: (i) Whether the Central and State G overnments have introduced any initiatives for ensuring the immunization of persons who do not have access to digital resources a s otherwise the mandatory requirement of registration over the Co - WIN digital portal for persons in the age group of 18 - 44 years will deprive a large class of citizens of vaccination ; (ii) Since the Central G overnment commits to vaccinating persons over 45 years, free of cost, in view of their vulnerability, w hether walk - in facilities for vaccination will continue for these persons after 1 May 2021 ; (iii) Whether the Central or State G overnments propose to undertake targeted vaccination drives for persons who are providing on - ground assistance during the second wave of the pandemic - such as crematorium workers,

PART E 37 who were not considered as Frontline or Healthcare workers for Phase 1 of the vaccination drive ; (iv) W hether , and if so what, steps being und er taken by I NYAS, the nation - wide mass awareness campaign for COVID - 19 vaccination, for ensuring outreach in rural areas and socio - economically underprivileged sections of society including the possibility of using mobile vans, vehicles and railways to vaccinate such people as well as those living in remote areas, near their doorsteps so as to minimize their travel and potential infection with COVID - 2019 . Efforts must also be made that a lack of an identity proof does not create a hindrance in the process of immunization of all individuals, specifically, the underprivileged ; (v) Whether the Central government will revisit its policy by procuring 100% of the doses which can then be equi tably disbursed to the State G overnments ; and (vi) Since the v accin e administration is now to be a shared responsibility of the Union and the States, the Central G overnment and the State Government s shall provide - ( a ) a breakup of the current and projected availability of vaccine stocks for the next 6 months ; and ( b ) a timeline for achieving immunization of the newly eligible 59 crore persons who are aged between 18 - 44 years. These issues are of vital importance, since vaccination appears to be one of the mo st important strategies to combat further spread of the pandemic, and would also provide a measure of security and assure the people about their health and well - being.

PART E 38 E .2 Vaccine pricing 38 Since the advent of the revised rollout strategy with effect from 1 May 2021, only persons aged 45 years and above are guaranteed a free vaccine. The reason of higher efficiency and speed has been furnished as a justification for enabling State G overnments and private hospitals to directly procure vaccines . We have come to understand that a few S tate Government s have committe d to free immunization under the revised strategy. On specific enquiry on the rationale in regard to the differential pricing for procurement by the Central Government and the State G over nments, the Central Government has furnished the following justification: “ It is submitted that liberty to decide prices on arm’s length basis by and between the State Government and hospitals is based on the concept of creating an incentivi z ed demand for the private vaccine manufacturers in order to instill a competitive market resulting in increased production of vaccines and market driven affordable prices for the same . Simultaneously, the free vaccination by the Central Government for above referred pri ority age groups would continue and it is always open for each State Government either to offer free vaccination or subsidise it for the additional identified earmarked priority group identified by the State Governments [age 18 - 44 years]. 63. The new stra tegy was devised after multiple Inter - Ministerial teams were deputed by Govt. of India to various manufacturing sites to understand their requirement and to provide pro - active and customized support to significantly augment vaccine production capacities [ which is the prime priority of the Central Government at this juncture], in the form of advance payments, facilitating more sites for production etc. This approach, on the one hand, incentivizes vaccine manufacturers to rapidly scale up their production an d on the other hand, it would also attract new vaccine manufacturers. It would make pricing, procurement and administration of vaccines more flexible and competitive and would further ensure augmented vaccine production as well as wider availability of vac cines in the countr y.” ( emphasis supplied )

PART E 39 39 Prima facie , there are several aspects of the vaccine pricing policy adopted by the Central government which require that policy be revisited. All vaccines, whether in the quantity of 50% purchased by the Central G overnment or the remaining 50% , are to be used for vaccinating citizens. The end use is the same. The Central G overnment proposes to purchase half of the total quantity falling within its fifty per cent quota while for the rest, t he manufacturers would declare in advance the price to be fixed, allowing the State Government s to negotiate their terms. As of date, the manufacturers have suggested two different prices, a lower price which is applicable to the Central G overnment and a higher price which is applicable to the quantities purchased by the State G overnments. It is likely that c ompelling the State G overnments to negotiate with manufacturers on the ground of promoting competition and making it attractive for ne w vaccine manufacture s will result in a serious detriment to those in the age group of 18 to 4 4 years , who will be vaccinated by the State G overnments. The social strata of this age group also comprises persons who are B ahujans or belong to other under pri vileged and marginalized groups , like many in the other population age groups. They may not have the ability to pay. Whether or not essential vaccines will be made available to them will depend upon the decision of each State G overnment, based on its own f inances, on whether or not the vaccine should be made available free or should be subsidized and if so, to what extent. This will create disparity across the nation. The vaccinations being provided to citizens constitute a valuable public good. D iscriminat ion cannot be made between different classes of citizens who are similarly circumstanced on the ground that while the Central government will carry the burden of providing free vaccines for the 45 years and

PART E 40 above population, the State G overnments will discharge the responsibility of the 18 to 4 4 age group on such commercial terms as they may negotiate. Prima facie , the rational method of proceeding in a manner consistent with the right to life (which includes the right to health) under Article 21 would be for the Central G overnment to procure all vaccines and to negotiate the price with vaccine manufacturers. Once quantities are allocated by it to each State G overnment, the latter would lift the allocated quantities and carry out the distribution. In oth er words, while procurement would be centralized, distribution of the vaccines across India within the States/UTs would be decentralized. While we are not passing a conclusive determination on the constitutionality of the current policy, the manner in whic h the current policy has been framed would prima facie result in a detriment to the right to public health which is an integral element of Article 21 of the Constitution. Therefore, we believe that the Central Government should consider revisiting its curr ent vaccine policy to ensure that it withstands the scrutiny of Articles 14 and Article 21 of the Constitution. 40 In light of the justification offered for non - interference in the prices that are set by the manufacture r s, irrespective of their variance from the prices for procurement of the Central Government, we would like to seek the following clarifications: (i) Wh ether any other alternatives were considered by the Central Government for ramping up the immunization drive in India , p articularly in light of its initial st rategy of a centralized free immunization drive ;

PART E 41 (ii) The methodology which the Central Government was envisaging to procure adequate vaccine doses for the population prior to the revised strategy which was announced amidst the second wave of COVID - 19 ; and (iii) Wh ether any studies and figures were relied upon in order to arrive at the conclusion that decentralized procurement would spur competitive markets to incentivize production and eventually drive down the prices of the vaccines . W hether these studies are of r elevan ce in a pandemic when vaccine s are a scarce and essential commodity which is being produced by a limited number of manufacturer s for a limited number of vaccines . 41 The Central Government has submitted that the Finance Ministry has sanction ed a credit of Rs 3000 crore s for Covishield ma nufacture r - Serum Institute of India 20 and Rs 1500 crore s to Covaxin ma nufacture r - Bharat Biotech. Additionally, another Rs 65 crore s is s tated to have been provided to Bharat Biotech‟s production cente r at Bangalore. In bolstering its argument for augmentation of vaccine production, the Central Government has provided the Court with further information on advance funding (of unspecified amounts) that is being provided to R& D and manufacturing facilities. In light of this investment, the Central G overnment should consider revisit i ng its policy bearing in mind what has been stated above, the following issues and other relevant information : 20 “ SII ”

PART F 42 (i) Whether, and if so, the Finance Ministry or any other funding organization of the Government of India ha ve made any grants/sanctions to Bharat Biotech and the S II in the past , like the current infusion of Rs 1500 crores and Rs 3000 crore s , respectively . If so, breaku p and cor elation with the total cost of development and production of the two vaccines ; (ii) Whether the current procurement prices for the Central Government account for infusion of funds for production, infrastructure and other aid provided by i t. If so, the basis on which the same benefit is denied to procurement by State G overnments which equally service the needs of citizens; and (iii) T he full extent of direct and indirect grant/aid provided for research, development and manufacture of all existing vaccines and future vaccines that it proposes to authoriz e. For instance, the Central Government has submitted in its affidavit that the Department of Biotechnology has facilitated the trials for Sputnik V . F Potentiality of Compulsory Licensing for vaccines and e ssential drugs 42 Several drugs that are at the core of the COVID treatment protocol are under patents in India including Remdesivir, Tociluzuma b and Favipiravir. On 2 October 2020, a communication was issued by the UOI , along with South Africa, to the Council for Trade - Related Aspects of Intellectual Property which stated that there were several reports about intellectual property rights hindering timely

PART F 43 provisioning of affordable medical products to patients 21 . The comm unication also reported that some members of the World Trade Organi z ation had carried out urgent amendments to their national patent laws to expedite the process of issuing compulsory/government use licenses. 43 In India, the patent regime is governed by the Patents Act, 1970 22 , Section 92 of which envisages the grant of a compulsory license, inter alia , in circumstances of national emergency and extreme urgency. Once a declaration of national emergency is made, and the relevant patents notified, any person int erested in manufacturing the drug can make an application to the Controller General of Patents who can then issue a compulsory license. The patentee would be paid a reasonable royalty as fixed by the Controller General of Patents. Further, under Section 10 0 of the Patents Act, the Central Government can authorize certain companies to use any patents for the “purpose of the government”. Indian companies can begin manufacturing the drugs while negotiating the royalties with the patentees. If the Central Gover nment or its authorized company is not able to reach an agreement with the patentee, the High Court has to fix the reasonable royalty that is to be paid to the patentee. Another alternative is for the Central Government to acquire the patents under Section 102 from the patentees. If the Central Government and the patentee is not able to reach a consensus on the price of the patents, it is up to the High Court to fix the royalty. Additionally, under Section 66 of the Patents Act, the Central Government is al so entitled to revoke a patent in the public interest. 21 Council for Trade - Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, Waiver From Certain Provisions Of The Trips Agreement For The Prevention, Containment And Treatment Of Covid - 19, Communication From India And South Africa, IP/C/W/669, 2nd October, 2020, a vailable at https://docs.wto.org/dol2fe/Pages/SS/directdoc.aspx?filename=q:/IP/C/W669.pdf&Open=True 22 “ Patents Act ”

PART F 44 44 The utilization of these flexibilities has also been detailed in the Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights Agreement 23 . Even as TRIPS obliges countries to ensure a minimum level of patent protection, it creates a permissive regime for the carving out of exceptions and limitations that further public health objectives 24 . This is evident from a conjoint reading of Articles 7, 8, 30 and 31 of TRIPS. Article 7 outlines the objectives of t he TRIPS as being to ensure the effective enforcement of intellectual property in a way that, inter alia , is „conducive to social and economic welfare‟. Article 8 gives member countries the freedom to take measures that protect public health and nutrition. Article 8(2) allows for the taking of TRIPS - compatible measures aimed at preventing the abuse of intellectual property rights. Articles 30 and 31 deal with exceptions to the rights of patent owners , by allowing grant of compulsory licenses. It leaves coun tries with significant breathing space to determine how the compulsory licensing or government - use levers can be triggered . While s uch determinations must be made on the individual merits of each case 25 , the aforesaid caveat does not apply when the compulso ry license grant is for national emergency, extreme urgency or public non - commercial use 26 . 45 A ccording to the 2001 Doha Declaration, TRIPS should be interpreted in a manner supportive of the right of members to protect public health and to promote access to medicines 27 . It recognizes the right of WTO members to use the full extent of the TRIPS flexibilities to secure this objective. Para 5(b) of the Doha 23 “ TRIPS ” 24 Report of the United Nations Secretary - General‟s High - Level Panel on Access to Medicines Promoting Innovation and Access to Heal th Technologies, (United Nations Secretary - General, 2016), p. 16. 25 TRIPS Agreement, Article 31 ( a ) . 26 TRIPS Agreement, Article 31 ( b ) . 27 World Trade Organization, 'Ministerial Declaration of 14 November 2001‟ (November 2001) WT/MIN(01)/DEC/1, 41 ILM 746, para 4.

PART F 45 Declaration provides the freedom to each member to grant compulsory licenses and to determine the grounds on which the licenses are granted. Para 5(c) leaves it up to each nation to determine what constitutes a national emergency or extreme urgency. In the context of the COVID - 19 pandemic, we note that several countries such as Canada and Germany have relaxed the legal regimes governing the grant of compulsory licenses 28 . 46 Whether and if so, the extent to which these provisions should be utilized is a policy decision for the Central Government. We have flagged the issue for its consideration . We have only outlined the legal framework within which the Central Government can possibly consider compulsory licensing and government acquisition of patents. The Central Government is free to choose any other course of action that it deems fit to tackl e the issue of vaccine requirements in an equitable and expedient manner, which may involve negotiations with domestic and foreign producers of vaccines. We clarify that it is up to the Central 28 „COVID - 19 IP Policy Tracker‟ (WIPO, 16 July 2020), available at https://www.wipo.int/covid19 - policy - tracker/#/covid19 - policy - tracker/access.

PART G 46 Government to choose the best possible measures it can undertake during the current crisis keeping in mind that public interest is of paramount importance. G Supply of Essential Drugs G.1 Submissions in the Central Government’s Affidavits 47 In relation to the broad issue of “Supply of Essential s ”, in its affidavit dated 23 April 2021 and additional affidavit 29 April 2021, with respect to Remdes i vir, the UOI urged that: (i) Remdesivir is a patented drug which is being manufactured in India under licensing agreements between the patent holder, M/s Gilead, a US based company and seven Indian companies. Under such agreements, these Indian companies are allowed to manufacture Remdesivir for distribution ; (ii) In its affidavit dated 23 April 2021, it was submitted on behalf of the Central Government that the current production is about 74 lakhs vials per month and once the additional manufacturing sites of the seven manufacturers become operational by May 2021, the production capacity will increase to 90 lakhs vials per month. In its additional affidavit dated 29 April 2021, the Central Government has submitted that as on 23 April 2021, the production capacity has increased to 1.03 crore vials per month ; (iii) The Central Government allocated 11 lakhs vials of Remdesivir to nineteen States with a high case load between 21 to 30 April through a letter issued on 21 April 2021. This allocation was revised and expanded to all States and U Ts through a letter issued on 24 April 2021 ;

PART G 47 (iv) The Central Government has directed the States to appoint nodal officers to ensure unrestricted and timely movement of Remdesivir. A control room has been set up in this regard by the National Pharmaceutical Pricin g Authority 29 which is monitoring supplies as allocat ed . A helpline has been set up by NPPA and manufacturers have been directed to address the hindrances in the movement of the drug. A WhatsApp group with nodal officers has also been created to enable coor dination and officials of MHA , NPPA and CDSCO are also part of the group ; (v) Remdesivir, its Active Pharma Ingredients 30 and formulations have been placed under export ban since 11 April 2021 ; (vi) The Ministry of Finance has issued a notification on 20 April 2021 exempting customs duty on the Remdesivir injection, and API of Remdesivir and Betacyclodexterin, which are used in the manufacture of the injection. All the SEZ/EOU manufacturing units of M/s Mylan and M/s Honous Lab, who are manufacturing Remdesivir on behalf of some of the seven manufacturers have also been directed to start manufacturing Remdesivir for domestic supply ; (vii) CDSCO has directed all State Drug Controllers on 10 April 2021 to conduct a special investig ation drive to prevent hoarding and black - marketing of Remdesivir in the country. DCGI and State Drug Controllers have been taking stringent action against such activities and enforcement action has been taken in thirty - four cases across the country ; 29 “ NPPA ” 30 “ API ”

PART G 48 (viii) MHA has issued an advisory on 22 April 2021 to States and Union Territories to facilitate smooth movement of supplies. A “Covid Drug Management Cell” consisting of the Department‟s Senior Officers and others has been constituted on 26 April 2021 to oversee and identify common concerns raised by States in relation to Remdesivir ; (ix) NPPA has revised the maximum retail price of a 100 mg/vial of Remdesivir to Rs 3500 ; and (x) The Central Government is also looking at the possibility of importing Remdesivir. 48 The UOI made the following submissions on the availability of Tociluzumab injections: (i) Tociluzumab is manufactured by a Swiss Company, M/s Roche, which does not have any manufacturing facility in India or any agreements with domestic pharma compan ies to manufacture the drug. It is imported in the country by Cipla. India is completely dependent on imports ; (ii) It is listed as an investigation al therapy drug (off - label) under the National Clinical Management Protocol for C OVID - 19 for severe cases. There are domestically produced alternatives which are equivalent to or better than Toci l u zu mab such as itulizumab, dexamethasone and methyl prednisolone. However, an incorrect public perception has been created that only Tociluzumab can treat the inflammatory burst condition in COVID - 19 patients since it i s an imported drug . This has led to the acute shortage in the availability of the drug and has created public panic ; and (iii) The supply of Tociluzumab is being monitored by NPPA and CDSCO.

PART G 49 49 The UOI has made the following submission s on the availability of other drugs: (i) The National Clinical Management Protocol for COVID - 19 does not include Favipirarvir (popularly known as Fabiflu) due to insufficient peer reviewed evidence to substantiate its use in mild to moderate cases of C OVID - 19. However, it is being prescribed by certain doctors. The clinical management protocol is a dynamic document which is reviewed periodically and is subject to further evaluation based on medical research and evidence that comes up in future ; and (ii) On 24 April 2021, Department of Pharmaceuticals 31 , NPPA and DCGI had reviewed the production and supply of other drugs such as Favipiravir, Enoxaparin, Ivermectin, Methylprednisolone, Paracetamol and Hydroxy - chloroquine. A meeting was conducted on 25 April 2021 by NPP A and DCGI with manufacturers to review stock position, availability and production plans. G.2 Recommendations 50 In respect of the essential drugs, this Court has been informed that the Central Government is taking steps to augment the production of Remdesiv ir. It has been brought to our notice that seven Indian companies are manufacturing this drug under a licensing agreement with a US based company, M/s Gilead. The current production capacity as on 23 April 2021 is noted to be at 1.03 c rores vials per month . The Central Government should provide us with the details of the actual rate of production and a breakup of demand for the drug from different 31 “ DoP ”

PART G 50 States. Further, while it has been submitted on behalf of the Central Government that it is allocating the stoc ks based on a rational criterion of equitable distribution keeping in mind the existing constraints on the availability of the drug, this Court should be provided with details of the methodology used for such allocation. 51 We have been informed by the Centr al Government in its affidavit that NPPA has revised the maximum retail price of Remdesivir to Rs 3500. However, it has come to our notice that several other drugs which are being prescribed by doctors for treating COVID - 19 patients like Favipiravir, Tociluzumab, Enoxaparin, Ivermectin, Methylprednisolone, Paracetamol and Hydroxy - chloroquine are being priced at exorbitant rates creating issues of access and affordability. While this is not a direction of this Court, the Central Government can consider invoking its statutory powers under paragraphs 19 and 20 of the Drugs Price Control Order, 2013. Under paragraph 19 32 of the Drugs Price Control Order, 2013 the Government in extraordinary circumstances, if it considers necessary in public interest, can fix a ceiling price or retail price of the drug for a certain period. COVID - 19 is a crisis of an unprecedented nature and qualifies as an extraordinary circumstance. It will be in public interest to ensure that the price of essential drugs is fixed in such a manner that it is available even to the most marginalized sections of the society. The Government can even monitor the prices of the drugs under paragraph 20 33 of the Drugs Price Control Order, 2013 32 “19: Fixation of the Ceiling Price Under Certain Circumstances: Notwithstandin g anything contained in this order, the Government may, in case of extraordinary circumstances, if it considers necessary to do so in public interest, fix the ceiling price or retail price of any drug, as it may deem fit and where the ceiling price or reta il price of the drug is already fixed and notified, the Government may allow an increase or decrease in the ceiling price or the retail price, as the case may be, irrespective of annual wholesale price index of that year.” 33 “20: Monitoring the Prices of Non - Scheduled Formulations: (1) the Government shall monitor the maximum retail prices (MRP) of all the drugs, including the non - scheduled formulations and ensure that no manufacturer increases the maximum retail price of a d rug more than ten percent of maximum retail price during preceding twelve months and where the increase is beyond ten percent of maximum retail price, it shall reduce the same to

PART G 51 and ensure that no manufacturer increases the price s of th e drugs by more than 10% of the maximum retail price during the preceding 12 months and where the increase is beyond 10% of the maximum retail price, it can oblige the manufacturer to reduce it to the level of 10% for the next 12 months. 52 The Central Gover nment has submitted that it plans to import Remdesivir. It can also consider importing other essential drugs to meet the immediate demand of the drug while the production is ramped up. We hasten to clarify that this does not constitute a direction of this Court and ultimately this decision falls under the domain of the e xecutive. 53 We note that there are certain medicines which are being prescribed by doctors which are not mentioned in the National Clinical Management Protocol for COVID - 19 like Favipiravir. H owever, since these medicines are being prescribed by doctors, people are facing significant inconvenience in obtaining them due to their shortage in certain parts of the country. The Central Government should consider whether the production of such medici nes should be augmented to meet the demand or instructions should be given to the doctors to not recommend such medicines unless they have been included in the national protocol. 54 It has been submitted on behalf of the Central Government that on 24 April 20 21, DoP, NPPA and DGCI reviewed the production and supply of drugs such as Favipiravir, Enoxaparin, Ivermectin, Methylprednisolone, Paracetamol and Hydroxy - chloroquine. The supply of Remdesivir and Tociluzumab is already under the consideration of the Cent ral Government. A meeting was also held on the level of ten percent of maximum retail price for next twelve months. (2) The manufacturer shall be liable to deposit the overcharged amount along with interest thereon from the date of the increase in price in addition to the penalty.”

PART G 52 25 April 2021 by DoP, NPPA and DGCI with the manufacturers to review stock position, availability and production plans. The Central Government should provide details of estimated demand of essential drugs mentione d above, production capacity, existing stocks, details of allocation and supply of such drugs. 55 As discussed in Section F , the Central Government can also consider using its powers under Sections 92, 100 or 102 of the Patents Act to increase production of essential drugs to ensure that it is commensurate to the demand. The Central Government‟s affidavit testifies to existence of capacity of public sector organizations and institutes, which can assist in augmenting production of various drugs and formulations. The utilization of these capabilities to augment production, once licensing is resorted to, will be in the interests of the general public. This Court is further of the opinion that prima facie the present circumstance warrant the government‟s examination of its the extraordinary powers, meant to be used in extreme situations, such as the current pandemic, for fixing drug prices, be i t vaccines, or patented formulations, having regard to the provisions of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 and other provisions 34 . We are cognizant that invocation of the above provisions, if any, is ultimately a policy decision of the Central Government an d may encompass negotiations with the concerned stakeholders. We hope that the Central Government will adopt a route that best serves the public interest. 34 Paragraph 3 and 19 of the Drugs Price Control Order, 2013

PART H 53 G .3 Black Marketing 56 This Court would like to take judicial notice of the fact that several critical drugs, used to treat COVID - 19, such as Remdesivir and Tocilizumab, are being sold at significantly inflated prices or in fake form. This is a condemnable attempt to exploit peo ple‟s misery and profit from their helplessness. 57 In order to clamp down on this practice, the Central Government can consider constituting a special team to identify and prosecute those who: (a) sell medical grade oxygen/COVID - 19 medicines at exorbitant prices; and (b) sell fake substances and recover the concerned substances. A protocol for a mbulances must also be evolved to avoid citizens being exploited by extracting unconscionable charges. Th e Central Government can consider creating a platform for easy reporting and redressal of such cases. H Recommendations for augmenting healthcare workforce 58 It is common knowledge that a large number of medical, nursing and pharmacy students, who graduated in 2020 and would be in the process of graduating in 2021, would be available to augment the workforce in the health sector. The Central Government should, we feel, look into this aspect, and ensure the optimal manner of utilization of their services, rega rd being had, of course, to their safety and well - being. 59 The Central Government should also consider using health care workforce available with the armed forces and para military forces for the purpose of vaccination.

P ART I 54 I Epilogue 60 The World Health Organisation 35 , while discussing the rapid spread of COVID - 19 has not only labelled it an epidemic but also an “infodemic”, due to the overabundance of information on the internet, which was riddled with misinformation and disinformation 36 . This highlights the key role internet and technology currently has in all our lives, as the COVID - 19 pandemic rages on. Indeed, the WHO recently also conducted a study to understand how individuals between the ages of 18 - 40 years dealt with the ongoing pan demic using social media 37 . 61 It is only appropriate then that when many cities in India are suffering through the second wave of the COVID - 19 pandemic, many have turned to the internet, using applications/websites to find critical support. On these platfor ms, online communities led by members of the civil society and other individuals, have assisted the needy in multiple ways – often by helping them procure oxygen, essential drugs or find a hospital bed through their own networks or by amplifying original r equests, and even by offering moral and emotional support. However, it is with deep distress that we note that individuals seeking help on such platforms have been targeted, by alleging that the information posted by them is false and has only been posted in social media to create panic, defame the administration or damage the “national image” . We do not hesitate in saying that such targeting 35 “ WHO ” 36 “Managing the COVID - 19 infodemic: Promoting healthy behaviours and mitigating the harm from misinformation and disinformation - Joint statement by WHO, UN, UNICEF, UNDP, UNESCO, UNAIDS, ITU, UN Global Pulse, and IFRC” ( WHO , 23 September 2020) available at <https://www.who.int/ne ws/item/23 - 09 - 2020 - managing - the - covid - 19 - infodemic - promoting - healthy - behaviours - and - mitigating - the - harm - from - misinformation - and - disinformation> 37 “Social media & COVID - 19: A global study of digital crisis interaction among Gen Z and Millennials” ( WHO , 23 S eptember 2020) available at <https://www.who.int/news - room/feature - stories/detail/social - media - covid - 19 - a - global - study - of - digital - crisis - interaction - among - gen - z - and - millennials>

P ART I 55 shall not be condoned, and the Central Government and State G overnments should ensure that they immediately cease any direct o r indirect threats of prosecution and arrest to citizens who air grievances or those that are attempting to help fellow citizens receive medical aid . If this does keep happening even after the current order, this Court shall be constrain ed to use the powers available to it under it c ontempt jurisdiction . We also direct that a ll Directors General of Police shall ensure compliance down the ranks of the police forces within their jurisdictions. 62 In these trying times, those desperately seekin g help for their loved ones on these platforms should not have their misery compounded through the actions of the State and its instrumentalities. Further, there are two more crucial reasons why such a clampdown on information sharing must be absolutely st opped immediately. 63 The first reason is because sharing information widely is in itself an important tool in combating public tragedies, like the current COVID - 19 pandemic. In K.S. Puttaswamy (Privacy - 9J.) vs Union of India 38 , one of us (DY Chandrachud , J) speaking for four Judges of a nine - Judge bench of this Court noted academic literature documenting the widespread availability of information and the resultant acknowledgement of the problem is what prevented the drought in Maharashtra in 1973 from be coming as bad as the Bengal Famine of 1943, where the British tried to deny the problem even existed. It was noted thus: “267. Civil and political rights and socio - economic rights do not exist in a state of antagonism. The conditions necessary for realisin g or fulfilling socio - economic rights do not postulate 38 (2017) 10 SCC 1

P ART I 56 the subversion of political freedom. The reason for this is simple. Socio - economic entitlements must yield true benefits to those for whom they are intended. This can be achieved by eliminating rent - se eking behaviour and by preventing the capture of social welfare benefits by persons who are not entitled to them. Capture of social welfare benefits can be obviated only when political systems are transparent and when there is a free flow of information. O pacity enures to the benefit of those who monopolise scarce economic resources. On the other hand, conditions where civil and political freedoms flourish ensure that governmental policies are subjected to critique and assessment. It is this scrutiny which subserves the purpose of ensuring that socio - economic benefits actually permeate to the underprivileged for whom they are meant. Conditions of freedom and a vibrant assertion of civil and political rights promote a constant review of the justness of socio - economic programmes and of their effectiveness in addressing deprivation and want. Scrutiny of public affairs is founded upon the existence of freedom. Hence civil and political rights and socio - economic rights are complementary and not mutually exclusive. 268. Some of these themes have been addressed in the writings of the Nobel laureate, Amartya Sen. Sen compares the response of many non - democratic regimes in critical situations such as famine with the responses of democratic societies in similar situatio ns. [ Amartya Sen, Development as Freedom (Oxford University Press, 2000) at pp. 178 - 79.]… 269. In the Indian context, Sen points out that the Bengal famine of 1943 “was made viable not only by the lack of democracy in colonial India but also by severe res trictions on reporting and criticism imposed on the Indian press, and the voluntary practice of “silence” on the famine that the British - owned media chose to follow” [ Amartya Sen, The Idea of Justice (Penguin Books, 2009) at p. 339.] . Political liberties and democratic rights are hence regarded as “constituent components” of development. [Id, at p. 347] In contrast during the drought which took place in Maharashtra in 1973, food production failed drastically and the per capita food output was half of that in sub - Saharan Africa. Yet there was no famine in Maharashtra where five million people were employed in rapidly organised public projects while there were substantial famines in sub - Saharan Africa. This establishes what he terms as “the protective role o f democracy”. Sen has analysed the issue succinctly: “The causal connection between democracy and the non - occurrence of famines is not hard to seek. Famines kill millions of people in different countries in the world, but they

P ART I 57 don't kill the rulers. The ki ngs and the presidents, the bureaucrats and the bosses, the military leaders and the commanders never are famine victims. And if there are no elections, no opposition parties, no scope for uncensored public criticism, then those in authority don't have to suffer the political consequences of their failure to prevent famines. Democracy, on the other hand, would spread the penalty of famines to the ruling groups and political leaders as well. This gives them the political incentive to try to prevent any threa tening famine, and since famines are in fact easy to prevent (the economic argument clicks into the political one at this stage), the approaching famines are firmly prevented.” [ Amartya Sen, Development as Freedom (Oxford University Press, 2000) at p. 180 .]...”” (emphasis supplied) As such, preventing clampdowns on sharing of information on online platforms is not just i n the interest of individuals sharing the information , but the larger democratic structures of our nation. Without the ready availabilit y of such information, it is entirely possible that the COVID - 19 pandemic may turn into a tragedy worse than what it already is. 64 The second reason is because sharing information widely will help in the creation of a “collective public memory” of this pande mic. The presence of collective public memory, which refers “ to an extant and taken - for - granted group memory ” 39 , is important for the creation of knowledge of the problems plaguing us today, so they may be passed on across time 40 . This is important since we do not have to travel back too much in our past to realise that the pandemic caused by the “Spanish” flu of 1918, which is said to have infected every third person in the world and killed between 50 - 100 million individuals (com pared to the 17 million 39 Theodore O. Prosise, „The collective memory of the atomic bombings misrecognized as objective history: The case of the public opposition to the national air and space museum's atom bomb exhibit‟, (1998) 62 Western Journal of Communication 3:316 - 347, pg 318 40 Bryan Hubbard and Marouf A. Hasian, „Atomic Memories of the „Enola Gay‟: Strategies of Remembrance at the National Air and Space Museum‟ (1998) 1 Rhetoric and Public Affairs 3:363 - 385, pg 364

P ART I 58 who died in World War I), has been almost entirely erased from our collective public memory 41 . Therefore, the widespread sharing of information by individuals living through the COVID - 19 pandemic becomes crucial. Furthermore, the rol e of Courts in creating and preserving this collective public memory cannot be understated . Professors Austin Sarat and Thomas R. Kearns, in their book History, Memory, and the Law , describe the function that is played by Courts in the following terms 42 : “L aw in the modern era is, we believe, one of the most important of our society's technologies for preserving memory. Just as the use of precedent to legitimate legal decisions fixes law in a particular relation to the past, memory may be attached, or attach itself, to law and be preserved in and through law. Where this is the case, it serves as one way of orienting ourselves to the future. As Drucilla Cornell puts it: "Legal interpretation demands that we remember the future." In that phrase, Cornell reminds us that there are, in fact, two audiences for every legal act, the audience of the present and the audience of the future. Law materializes memory in documents, transcripts, written opinions; it re - enacts the past, both intentionally and unconsciously, an d it is one place where the present speaks to the future through acts of commemoration. Because the litigated case creates a record, courts can become archives in which that record serves as the materialization of memory. Due process guarantees an opportu nity to be heard by, and an opportunity to speak to, the future. It is the guarantee that legal institutions can be turned into museums of unnecessary, unjust, undeserved pain and death. The legal hearing provides lawyers and litigants an opportunity to wr ite and record history by creating narratives of present injustices, and to insist on memory in the face of denial. By recording such history and constructing such narratives lawyers and litigants call on an imagined future to choose Justice over the "juri spathic" tendencies of the moment.” (emphasis supplied) 41 Jonathan Freedland, „History suggests we may forget the pandemic sooner than we think‟ ( The Guardian , 29 January 2021 ) available at <https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/jan/29/history - forget - pandemic - spanish - flu - covid> 42 Austin Sarat and Thomas R. Kearns, History, Memory, and the Law (University of Michigan Press, 2009) pgs 12 - 13

P ART I 59 Hence, in the present proceedings, we hope to not only initiate a dialogue so as to better tackle the current COVID - 19 pandemic but also to preserve its memory in our public records, so that future g enerations may evaluate our efforts and learn from them. 65 We speak not only as members of this C ourt, but also as grateful citizens of the country, and commend the outstanding work of our all healthcare professionals (doctors, nurses, healthcare workers, laboratory technicians, ward staff , ambulance drivers, crematorium workers etc . ) during this crisis. They have truly gone beyond their call of duty and toiled day in and day out, relentlessly without rest amidst great challenges. It is absolutely necessary to take urgent steps for their well - being to ensure that our appreciation for their tremendous efforts is not reduced to rhetoric. Thi s is especially important since another factor which affects how collective public memory of any event is created is by the rhetoric surrounding it 43 . As such, o ur public memory of this public event has to transcend its conception as a “war” against the vir us of COVID - 19 itself, but rather to remember that it is “ the complex epidemiological circumstances that promote these outbreaks and the under - resourced health systems that are tasked with disease containment ” 44 . While the healthcare professionals have been at the forefront of tackling this crisis, we have to recognize their contribution as medical healthcare professionals who have undertaken “ to protect public health using 43 Nicole Maurantonio, "The Po litics of Memory" in Kate Kenski and Kathleen Hall Jamieson (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Political Communication (Oxford University Press, 2014) 44 Luke Shors, „Waging Another Public Health "War?"‟ ( Think Global Health , 26 February 2020) available at <http s://www.thinkglobalhealth.org/article/waging - another - public - health - war>

P ART I 60 proven scientific evidence and best practices and to serve to community at large ” 45 , and not just as “CORONA WARRIORS”. 66 W e also do not hesitate to note that the treatment meted out to the se public healthcare professional during this COVID - 19 pandemic has sometimes been less than ideal. The following are some of the issues we wish to highli ght: (i) Recently, there were reports that the Pradhan Mantri Garib Kalyan Package Insurance Scheme, an insurance scheme of Rs 50 lakhs which had been extended to about 22 lakh healthcare professionals, was set to expire on 24 March 2021 and would not be renew ed. While we are happy to note that UOI‟s affidavit of 23 April 2021 states that this Scheme has been extended for one year starting April 2021, we have also been informed that till date only 287 claims have been settled under it, which includes claims fro m the families of 168 doctors who died after contracting COVID - 19 while treating patients. We direct the Central Government to inform this Court as to how many claims are pending under the Scheme, and the timeline within which the Central Government expects to settle them ; (ii) H ealthcare p ersonnel are at an obvious heightened risk of contracting the COVID - 19 virus. However, we are aware of reports that indicate that infected healthcare personnel are left to fend for themselves without adequate availabilit y of beds, oxygen or essential drugs. Further , some of them have also often been asked to report back to duty within 10 days of first testing positive for COVID - 19 (provided they are asymptomatic), even 45 Elena N. Naumova, „The traps of calling the public health response to COVID ‑ 19 “ an unexpected war against an invisible enemy ”‟ (2020) Journal of Public Health Policy (2020) 41:233 - 237, pg 233

P ART I 61 though a longer recuperation period is often recommen ded. While we are dealing with a terrible second wave of the COVID - 19 pandemic, there must be an effective policy to ensure that the nation truly acknowledges their effort and creates incentives for them. W e hope it will be remedied soon by the Central and State G overnments through the introduction of appropriate guidelines and measures; (iii) It is unclear what measures are currently being taken to ensure that healthcare personnel can continue to serve others while not risking the health of their family members . We hope that the respective State G overnments, with necessary assistance from the Central Government , can ensure this takes place ; and (iv) The Central Government should, we feel examine and ensure that in addition to the schemes it has framed, other faciliti es such as availability of food, resting facilities during intervals between work, transportation facilities, non - deduction of salary or leave account, if afflicted by COVID 2019 or related infection, overtime allowance, in both public and private hospital s, and a separate helpline for doctors, and healthcare professionals, in cases of COVID 2019 related emergencies, is provided. All these, we feel, would show these professionals that we do not show our appreciation in mere words, but also care for them. 67 The issues mentioned above are only symptomatic of the other broader issues that are being faced by healthcare professionals , who are instrumental in combating the pandemic. Hence, we hope their welfare is considered seriously by the Central and State G overnments . Further, we would wish to use this order to

PART J 62 place on record our sincerest appreciation for all the public healthcare professionals - not just limited to the doctors , but also nurses , hospital staff, ambulance drivers, san itation workers and crematorium workers. It is through their dedicated efforts that the effect of COVID - 19 pandemic is being currently tackled in India. 68 In light of the continuing surge of infections in the second wave of the pandemic, w e direct the Centra l Government and State Governments to put on record the efforts taken to curb the spread of the virus and the measures that they plan on taking in the near future. At the same time, we would seriously urge the Central and State Governments to consider impo sing a ban on mass gatherings and super spreader events. They may also consider imposing a lockdown to curb the virus in the second wave in the interest of public welfare . Having said that, we are cognizant of the socio - economic impact of a lockdown, speci fically, on the marginalized communities. Thus, in case the measure of a lockdown is imposed, arrangements must be made beforehand to cater to the needs of these communities. J Conclusion 69 The present order has primarily considered the submissions (written and oral) of the UOI . These submissions have been reproduced here as a matter of public record and to contextualize the clarifications that are being sought by our Court in order to serve its dialogic role. We reiterate, for abundant c aution, that the data and submissions reproduced above are not its endorsement or acceptance. In terms of the above discussion, we hereby pass the following directions:

PART J 63 (i) The UOI shall ensure, in terms of the assurance of the Solicitor General, that the def icit in the supply of oxygen to the GNCTD is rectified within 2 days from the date of the hearing, that is, on or before the midnight of 3 May 2021; (ii) The Central Government shall, in collaboration with the States , prepare a buffer stock of oxygen for emergency purposes and decentralize the location of the emergency stocks. The emergency stocks shall be created within the next four days and is to be replenished on a day to day basis, in addition to the existing allo cation of oxygen supply to the States; (iii) The Central Government and State Government s shall notify all Chief Secretaries/Director s General of Police/Commissioners of Police that any clampdown on information on social media or harassment caused to individuals seeking/delivering help on any platform will attrac t a coercive exercise of j urisdiction by this Court . The Registrar (Judicial) is also directed to place a copy of this order before all District Magistrates in the country ; (iv) The Central Government shall , within two weeks , formulate a national policy on admissions to hospitals which shall be followed by all State Governments . Till the formulation of such a policy by the Central Government, no patient shall be denied hospitalization or essential drugs in any State/UT for lack of local residential proof of that State/UT or even in the absence of identity proof ; (v) The Central Government shall revisit its initiatives and protocols, including on the availability of oxygen, availability and pricing of vaccines, availability

PART J 64 of essential drugs at affordable prices and respond on all the other issues highlighted in this order before the next date of the hearing, that is, 10 May 2021. Copies of all affidavits to be served upon the A mic i in advance ; and (vi) Several other suggestions have been made before this Court in IAs and writ petitions filed by diverse parties. In order to streamline the further cours e of hearing, we have requ ested the Amic i to collate and compile these suggestions which would be taken up later. The present order has focused on certain critical issues in view of the urgency of the situation. ……….….....................................................J. [Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud] ……..….….....................................................J. [L Nageswara Rao] ……..….….....................................................J. [S Ravindra Bhat] New Delhi; April 30 , 2021

ITEM NO.305 Court 5 (Video Conferencing) SECTION PIL-W S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Writ Petition(s)(Civil) No(s).504/2021 SHIVSHANKER KISANRAO SHETKAR Petitioner(s) VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Respondent(s) Date : 30-04-2021 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE D.Y. CHANDRACHUD HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. NAGESWARA RAO HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT For Petitioner(s) Mr. Prashant Patil, Advocate Mr. Pranav Patil, Advocate Mr. Harisha S.R., AOR For Respondent(s) UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R List the Writ Petition on 10 May 2021. (SANJAY KUMAR-I) (SAROJ KUMARI GAUR) AR-CUM-PS COURT MASTER

ITEM NO.304 Court 5 (Video Conferencing) SECTION PIL-W S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Writ Petition(s)(Civil) No(s).497/2021 KARAN KOHLI & ANR. Petitioner(s) VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Respondent(s) (WITH IA No.58348/2021-GRANT OF INTERIM RELIEF and IA No.58349/2021-EXEMPTION FROM FILING AFFIDAVIT ) Date : 30-04-2021 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE D.Y. CHANDRACHUD HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. NAGESWARA RAO HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT For Petitioner(s) Mr. Kush Chaturvedi, Adv. Ms. Prerna Priyadarshini, AOR Mr. Aditya Shekhar, Adv. Ms. Priyanka Priyadarshini, Adv. Ms. Priyashree Sharma Ph, Adv. For Respondent(s) UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R List the Writ Petition on 10 May 2021. (SANJAY KUMAR-I) (SAROJ KUMARI GAUR) AR-CUM-PS COURT MASTER

1 ITEM NO.302 Court 5 (Video Conferencing) SECTION PIL-W S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS SMW (C) No.3/2021 IN RE : DISTRIBUTION OF ESSENTIAL SUPPLIES AND SERVICES DURING PANDEMIC (WITH IA No. 57404/2021 - APPROPRIATE ORDERS/DIRECTIONS, IA No. 57405/2021 - EARLY HEARING APPLICATION, IA No. 57396/2021 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING AFFIDAVIT, IA No. 57400/2021 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING AFFIDAVIT, IA No. 57399/2021 - INTERVENTION APPLICATION, IA No. 57403/2021 - INTERVENTION APPLICATION, IA No. 57395/2021 – INTERVENTION/IMPLEADMENT, IA No. 57406/2021 - PERMISSION TO APPEAR AND ARGUE IN PERSON) Date : 27-04-2021 This matter was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE D.Y. CHANDRACHUD HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. NAGESWARA RAO HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT For Petitioner(s) By Courts Motion For Respondent(s) Mr. Tushar Mehta, SG Mr. Gurmeet Singh Makkar, Adv. Mr. Rajat Nair, Adv. Mr. Kanu Aggarwal, Adv. Mr. Tushar Mehta, SG Ms. Manisha Lavkumar, Sr. Adv. Mr. A P Mayee, AOR Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Sr. Adv. Mr. Mahendra Singh Singhvi, Adv. Gen. Mr. Amit Bhandari, Adv. Mr. Sandeep Jha, Adv. Mr. Vikas Singh, Sr. Adv. Mr. Suhaan Mukerji, Adv. Mr. Vishal Prasad, Adv. Ms. Deepeika Kalia, Adv. Mr. Nikhil Parikshith, Adv. Mr. Abhishek Manchanda, Adv. Mr. Kapish Seth, Adv. Mr. Mrityunjai Singh, Adv.

2 Mr. Sayandeep Pahari, Adv. M/S. Plr Chambers And Co. Mr. Vikas Singh, Sr. Adv. Mr. Pradeep Kumar Rai, Sr. Adv. Ms. Mahalakshmi Pavani, Sr. Adv. Mr. Arijit Prasad, Adv. Mr. Brijender Chahar, Sr. Adv. Ms. Sonia Mathur, Sr. Adv. Mr. Vikas Pahwa, Sr. Adv. Mr. Meenesh Dubey, Adv. Ms. Ritu Bhadwaj, Adv. Mr. Anupam Mishra, Adv. Ms. Nina Gupta, Adv. Ms. K.V. Bharathi Upadhyaya, Adv. Mr. Mukesh Kumar Singh, Adv. Ms. Sasmita Tripathy, Adv. Mr. Prashant Singh, Adv. Ms. Prerna Kumari, Adv. Ms. Seema Patnaha, Adv. Ms. Nandani Gupta, Adv. Mr. Rahul Kaushik, Adv. Mr. Rahul Mehra, Sr. Adv. Mr. Satyakam, Adv. Mr. Gautam Narayan, Adv. Ms. Asmita Singh, Adv. Mr. Anand Grover, Sr. Adv. Mr. Arvind Datar, Sr. Adv. Mr. AMarjit Singh Chandiok, Sr. Adv. Mr. Prashant Kumar, Adv. Ms. Anindita Pujari, Adv. Mr. Amarjit Singh Bedi, AOR Mr. S. Niranjan Reddy, Sr. Adv. Mr. Mahfooz A. Nazki, AOR Mr. Polanki Gowtham, Adv. Mr. Shaik Mohamad Haneef, Adv. Mr. T. Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy, Adv. Mr. Amitabh Sinha, Adv. Mr. Shrey Sharma, Adv. Mr. Rahul Chitnis Adv. Mr. Sachin Patil, AOR Mr. Aaditya A. Pande, Adv. Mr. Geo Joseph, Adv. Mr. M. Yogesh Kanna, AOR Mr. RajaRajeshwaran, Sr. Adv. Mr. S. C. Verma, Adv. Gen. Chhattisgarh

3 Mr. Sumeer Sodhi, AOR Mr. K.V. Jagdishvaran, Adv. Mrs. G. Indira, AOR Ms. Ruchira Gupta, Adv. Mr. Shishir Deshpande, Adv. Mr. Anurag Sharma, Adv. Mr. Abhishek Kumar Srivastava, Adv. Dr. A.P. Singh, Adv. Mr. Sadashiv, AoR Mr. V.P. Singh, Adv. Ms. Geeta Chauhan, Adv. Ms. Richa Singh, Adv. Mr. Sharwan Kumar Goyal, Adv. Mr. Jai Gopal Saboo, Adv. Mr. Purushainder Kaurav, Adv. Gen. MP Mr. Saurabh Mishra, AAG Mr. Sunny Choudhary AOR Mr A.D.N. Rao, AOR Mr A. Venkatesh, Adv. Mr Rahul Mishra, Adv. Ms. Ananya Khandelwal, Adv. Mr. V.N. Raghupathy, Adv. Ms. Siddhesh Kotwal, Adv Ms. Ana Upadhyay, Adv. Mr. Divyansh Tiwari, Adv. Ms. Manya Hasija, Adv. Ms. Siddhesh Kotwal, Adv Ms. Ana Upadhyay, Adv. Mr. Divyansh Tiwari, Adv. Ms. Manya Hasija, Adv. Mr. Nirnimesh Dube, Adv. Mr. Yatin Oza, Sr. Adv. Mr. Purvish Jitendra Malkan, AOR Ms. Dharita Purvish Malkan, Adv. Ms. Deepa Gorasia, Adv. Mr. Alok Kumar, Adv. Ms. Neha Ambashtha, Adv. Ms. Nandini Chhabra, Adv. Ms. Bhavna Sarkar, Adv. Mr. Pukhrambam Ramesh Kumar, Adv Ms. Anupama Ngangom, Adv. Mr. Karun Sharma, Adv.

4 Mr. Sunny Choudhary, AOR Mrs. K. Enatoli Sema, Adv. Mr. Amit Kumar Singh, Adv. Mr. Apratim Animesh Thakur, Adv. Ms. Prachi Hasija, Adv. Mr. Manish Kumar, Adv. Mr SPM Tripathi, Adv. Ms. Swagoti Batchas, Adv. Mr V K Shukla, Adv. Mr Sugam Mishra, Adv. Mr. Satish Kumar, AOR Mr. Vivek Kolhi, Adv. Gen Sikkim Mr. Sameer Abhyankar, AOR Mr. Amish Tandon, Adv. Mr. Ayush Beotra, Adv. Mr.Varun Tandon, Adv . Mr. Dipin Tamang, Adv . Mr. Uddhav Khanna, Adv . Ms. Shafali Jain, Adv. Mr. Amit Kumar, Adv. Gen Meghalaya Mr. Avijit Mani Tripathi, AOR Mr. Shaurya Sahay, Adv. Mr. Chetan Joshi, Adv. Mr. G.M.Kawoosa, Adv. Ms. Taruna Ardhendumauli Prasad, AOR Mr. Parth Awasthi, Adv. Mr. Abhimanyu Tewari, AOR Ms. Eliza Bar, Adv. Ms. Garima Prashad, Sr. Adv. Mr. Abhinav Agrawal, AOR Mr. Rakesh Malhotra, Adv. Mr. Tungesh, AOR Mr. Shashank Deo Sudhi, applicant-in-person Mr. Chirag M. Shroff, AOR Mr. Shibashish Misra, AOR Mr. Jishnu M.L., Adv. Ms. Priyanka Prakash, Adv. Ms. Beena Prakash, Adv. Mr. G. Prakash, AOR

5 Applicant-in-person UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R 1 By the order of this Court dated 22 April 2021, notice was issued to the Union government and to all the States and Union Territories. The Union government was directed to place on the record a national plan for finding solutions to the human hardship caused by the outbreak of Covid-19 since March 2020. The invocation, suo motu, of the jurisdiction under Article 32 is necessitated by the critical situation which has emerged in the country. Among the issues which were highlighted in the order of this Court, are : (i) Ensuring an adequate supply of oxygen; (ii) Ensuring the availability of essential drugs; and (iii) Streamlining the modalities for vaccination. 2 The Court appointed an amicus curiae to assist the Court. Subsequently, on 23 April 2021, the amicus curiae requested to be relieved of the nomination by the Court. An order has been passed acceding to the request. 3 An affidavit has been filed by the Union government this morning which could not be circulated in advance to the members of the Bench or to the counsel appearing on behalf of the contesting parties. Before proceeding further, it is necessary at this stage to : (i) Appoint a fresh set of amicus curiae to assist the Court; and (ii) Issue house-keeping directions for circulating the affidavit of the Union of

6 India to all the States and Union Territories and to other parties who are represented in these proceedings. 4 The purpose of this Court assuming jurisdiction under Article 32 of the Constitution is 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 have a robust understanding of ground realities and are grappling with the practical issues and problems which have arisen in their jurisdictions as a result of the outbreak of the pandemic. The jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution is a valuable safeguard for the protection of fundamental and legal rights. The jurisdiction of this Court under Article 32 extends to the protection of the fundamental rights. 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. The reason for the intervention of this Court must, however, be understood in a proper perspective. 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

7 this duty that this Court has assumed jurisdiction under Article 32 of the Constitution. Thus, we clarify 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. 5 During the course of the hearing, we have heard submissions on behalf of the Union government by Mr Tushar Mehta, the learned Solicitor General. Several states have appeared before this Court : Mr Vikas Singh, Senior Counsel for the State of West Bengal; Dr A M Singhvi, Senior Counsel for the State of Rajasthan,; Mr Niranjan Reddy, Senior Counsel for the State of Andhra Pradesh; Mr Ranjit Kumar, Senior Counsel for the State of Bihar and Mr Rahul Mehra, Senior Counsel for the NCT of Delhi. Mr Arvind P Datar and Mr Yatin Oza, Senior Counsel appeared on behalf of the Bar Association of India and the Gujarat High Court Bar Association, respectively. The Court also has the presence of Standing Counsel including Mr Rahul Chitnis and Mr Sachin Patil appearing on behalf of the State of Maharashtra. 6 In order to enable the Union of India and the diverse States who are appearing before this Court to have some indication of the further line of enquiry, we tentatively highlight the following issues which would be considered during the course of the proceedings : (i) Supply of oxygen – The Court should be apprised by the Union of India on (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;

8 (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.

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

10 7 In order to allay the concerns of citizens, it is necessary that a panel of medical experts is 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. 8 In the event that the affidavit which has already been filed by the Union of India has not dealt with the issues which have been highlighted above, an additional affidavit be filed before the next date of listing. 9 Mr Jaideep Gupta and Ms Meenakshi Arora, Senior Counsel are appointed as amicus curiae. Copies of all affidavits shall be made available to them. 10 The Chief Secretaries of the State Governments and Union Territories shall also file their responses by 6 pm on 29 April 2021 clarifying the infrastructural facilities which are available in the States/Union Territories in respect of each of the issues which have been highlighted above. The States and Union territories shall clarify the steps taken in regard to each of the above issues in so far as their roles are involved. Once the State Governments have done so, that will enable the Court to better understand the shortfall, if any, which needs to be attended to by the Union government. Copies of the affidavits shall be exchanged between the counsel appearing on behalf of the diverse parties. 11 Dr A M Singhvi, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the State of Rajasthan has sought to highlight certain aspects which emerged as a result of an order passed by the High Court of Delhi yesterday in regard to the detention of oxygen tankers. Since the High Court of Delhi is seized of the proceedings, we are not entering into that area, but leave it open to the State of Rajasthan to

11 move the High Court for appropriate directions. 12 List the matter on 30 April 2021 at 12.00 noon as part-heard matter. (SANJAY KUMAR-I) (SAROJ KUMARI GAUR) AR-CUM-PS COURT MASTER

ITEM NO.302 Court 1 (Video Conferencing) SECTION PIL-W S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS SUO MOTU WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 3/2021 IN RE : DISTRIBUTION OF ESSENTIAL SUPPLIES AND SERVICES DURING PANDEMIC (FOR ADMISSION) Date : 23-04-2021 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. NAGESWARA RAO HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT By Courts Motion. Mr. Harish N. Salve, Sr. Adv. Ms. Anuradha Dutt, Adv. For parties Mr. Tushar Mehta, SG. Mr. Rajat Nair, Adv. Mr. Kanu Agrawal, Adv. Mr. B. V. Balram Das, AOR State of Maharashtra Mr. Rahul Chitnis, Adv. Mr. Sachin Patil, AOR State of M.P. Mr. Purushaindra Kaurav, Adv.G. Mr. Saurabh Mishra, Addl.Adv.G. Mr. Gopal Jha, AOR Mr. Sunny Choudhary, AOR State of Manipur Mr. Pukhrambam Ramesh Kumar, Adv. Ms. Anupama Ngangom, Adv. Mr. Karun Sharma, Adv. State of Assam Mr. Shuvodeep Roy, AOR Ms. Diksha Rai, Adv. Ms. Nimisha Menon, Adv. 1

SUO MOTO WRIT PETITION (C) No. 3/2021 State of Tripura Mr. Shuvodeep Roy, AOR State of Sikkim Mr. Vivek Kohli, Adv.G. Mr. Sameer Abhyankar, AOR Mr. Amish Tandon, Adv. Mr. Ayush Beotra, Adv. Mr. Varun Tandon, Adv. Mr. Dipin Tamang, Adv. Mr. Uddhav Khanna, Adv. Ms. Shafali Jain, Adv. State of Odisha Mr. Shibashish Misra, AOR State of Meghalaya Mr. Amit Kumar, Sr. Adv. Adv.G. Mr. Avijit Mani Tripathi, AOR Ms. Rekha Bakshi, Adv. Mr. T. K. Nayak, Adv. State of Mizoram Ms. Siddhesh Kotwal, Adv. Ms. Ana Upadhyay, Adv. Mr. Divyansh Tiwari, Adv. Ms. Manya Hasija, Adv. Mr. Nirnimesh Dube, AOR State of Rajasthan Mr. Sandeep Kumar Jha, Adv. State of Andhra Pradesh Mr. S. Niranjan Reddy, Sr. Adv. Mr. Mahfooz A. Nazki, AOR Mr. Polanki Gowtham, Adv. Mr. Shaik Mohamad Haneef, Adv. Mr. T. Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy, Adv. Mr. Amitabh Sinha, Adv. Mr. Shrey Sharma, Adv. State of Kerala Mr. Jishnu M.L., Adv. Ms. Priyanka Prakash, Adv. Ms. Beena Prakash, Adv. Mr. G. Prakash, AOR UT of Jammu & Kashmir Mr. G. M. Kawoosa, Adv. Ms. Taruna Ardhendumauli Prasad, AOR Mr. Parth Awasthi, Adv. State of Uttar Pradesh Ms. Garima Prashad, AAG. Mr. Abhinav Agrawal, AOR High Court of Delhi Mr. ADN Rao, AOR Mr. Annam Venkatesh, Adv. Mr. Rahul Mishra, Adv. Ms. Ananya Khandelwal, Adv. 2

SUO MOTO WRIT PETITION (C) No. 3/2021 SCBA Mr. Vikas Singh, Sr. Adv. Mr. Pradeep Kumar Rai, Sr. Adv. Mr. V. Shekhar, Sr. Adv. Ms. Mahalakshmi Pavani, Sr. Adv. Mr. Arijit Prasad, Sr. Adv. Mr. Brijender Chahar, Sr. Adv. Ms. Sonia Mathur, Sr. Adv. Mr. Vikas Pahwa, Sr. Adv. Mr. Meenesh Dubey, adv. Ms. Ritu Bhardwaj, adv. Mr. Anupam Mishra, Adv. Ms. Nina Gupta, Adv. Mr. K. V. Bharathi Upadhyaya, Adv. Mr. Mukesh Kumar Singh, Adv. Ms. Sasmita Tripathy, Adv. Mr. Prashant Singh, Adv. Ms. Prerna Kumari, Adv. Ms. Seema Patnaha, Adv. Ms. Nandani Gupta, Adv. Mr. Rahul Kaushik, AOR State of West Bengal Mr. Vikas Singh, Sr. Adv. Mr. Suhaan Mukerji, Adv. Mr. Vishal Prasad, Adv. Ms. Deepeika Kalia, Adv. Mr. Nikhil Parikshith, Adv. Mr. Abhishek Manchanda, Adv. Mr. Kapish Seth, Adv. Mr. Mrityunjai Singh, Adv. Mr. Sayandeep Pahari, Adv. UT of Andaman Mr. K. V. Jagdishvaran, Adv. Ms. G. Indira, AOR State of Nagaland Ms. K. Enatoli Sema, ADv. Mr. Amit Kumar Singh, Adv. Mr. Apratim Animesh Thakur, Adv. Ms. Prachi Hasija, Adv. Mr. Rakesh Malhotra, Adv. Mr. Tungesh, AOR State of Karnataka Mr. V. N. Raghupathy, Adv. State of Bihar Mr. Ranjit Kumar, Sr. Adv. Mr. Manish Kumar, AOR Gujarat High Court Advocates Association Mr. Dushyant Dave, Sr. Adv. Mr. Purvish Jitendra Malkan, AOR Ms. Dharita Purvish Malkan, Adv. 3

SUO MOTO WRIT PETITION (C) No. 3/2021 Ms. Deepa Gorasia, Adv. Mr. Alok Kumar, Adv. Ms. Neha Ambashtha, Adv. Ms. Nandini Chhabra, Adv. Ms. Bhavna Sarkar, Adv. State of Gujarat Mr. Tushar Mehta, SG. Mr. A. P. Mayee, AOR State of Chhattisgarh Mr. S. C. Verma, Adv.G. Mr. Sameer Sodhi, AOR State of U.P. Mr. Kamlendra Mishra, AOR Mr. Rajeev Kumar Dubey, Adv. GNCTD Mr. Chirag M. Shroff, AOR I.A. No. 57403/2021 Mr. Shashank Deo Sudhi, Petitioner-in-person. Mr. Amarjit Singh Bedi, AOR UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R At the request of Mr. Harish Salve, learned Senior Advocate, we relieve him of his position as an Amicus Curiae in the matter, along with Ms. Anuradha Dutt, learned Advocate. Mr. Tushar Mehta, learned Solicitor General, seeks time to file affidavit. List the matter on 27 th April, 2021. (NIDHI AHUJA) (BEENA JOLLY) AR-cum-PS COURT MASTER (NSH) 4

1 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION SUO MOTO WRIT PETITION (C) NO.3/2021 IN RE : DISTRIBUTION OF ESSENTIAL SUPPLIES AND SERVICES DURING PANDEMIC O R D E R The situation in various parts of the country is grim. There seems to be a sudden surge in the number of covid patients and mortality. Other than vaccination which is prophylactic in nature, covid can be treated only be some drugs such as Remdesivir. Oxygen to the patients is also said to be an essential part of the treatment. 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. Nonetheless, it seems 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

2 local, regional or otherwise. Prima facie , we are inclined to take the 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. We expect the Central Government to place before this Court a national plan for dealing with the above services and supplies during Pandemic. In these circumstances, we direct that notices be issued 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 by this Court in relation to a) Supply of oxygen; b) Supply of essential drugs; c) Method and manner of vaccination; and d) Declaration of lockdown. Prima facie, we are also of the opinion that the Central government should respond on the following - 1. Report on the existence or otherwise and requirement of setting up of a coordinating body that would consider allocation of the above 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 above articles 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. The notice shall be made returnable tomorrow. Shri Harish Salve, learned Senior Counsel is appointed as Amicus Curiae to assist the Court in the matter . He shall be assisted by Ms. Anuradha Dutt, learned Advocate. List the matter tomorrow at 11 am. ....................CJI [S.A. BOBDE] .....................J [L. NAGESWARA RAO] .....................J [S. RAVINDRA BHAT] NEW DELHI; APRIL 22, 2021.

4 ITEM NO.302 Court No.1 (Video Conferencing) SECTION PIL-W S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS SUO MOTO WRIT PETITION (C) NO.3/2021 IN RE : DISTRIBUTION OF ESSENTIAL SUPPLIES AND SERVICES DURING PANDEMIC (FOR ADMISSION) Date : 22-04-2021 This petition was taken up suo moto for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. NAGESWARA RAO HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT By Courts Motion Counsel for the parties Mr. Tushar Mehta, Ld. SG Mr. Rajat Mehta, Adv. Mr. Kanu Agrawal, Adv. Mr. B.V. Balaram Das, AOR Mr. Harish Salve, Sr. Adv. Ms. Anuradha Dutt, Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Let notices be issued 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 by this Court, in terms of the signed order. List the matter tomorrow i.e. 23.04.2021 at 11 am. (SANJAY KUMAR-II) (PRADEEP KUMAR) ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS BRANCH OFFICER (Signed Order is placed on the file)

ITEM NO.3 Court 1 (Video Conferencing) SECTION PIL-W S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Writ Petition(s)(Civil) No(s). 1293/2020 DEEPAK KANTILAL NATHWANI Petitioner(s) VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ANR. Respondent(s) (FOR ADMISSION ) Date : 15-02-2021 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. BOPANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN For Petitioner(s) Mr. A. Lakshminarayanan, AOR For Respondent(s) UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Issue notice. Tag with W.P.(Civil) No. 863 of 2020. (MADHU BALA) (INDU KUMARI POKHRIYAL) AR-CUM-PS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

1 ITEM NO.16 Court 1 (Video Conferencing) SECTION PIL-W S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Writ Petition(s)(Civil) No(s). 863/2020 SACHIN JAIN Petitioner(s) VERSUS UNION OF INDIA Respondent(s) (IA No. 92178/2020 - APPROPRIATE ORDERS/DIRECTIONS IA No. 92181/2020 - EARLY HEARING APPLICATION IA No. 103135/2020 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING AFFIDAVIT IA No. 101999/2020 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING AFFIDAVIT) WITH W.P.(C) No. 489/2020 (PIL-W) (FOR ADMISSION IA No. 55396/2020 - APPLICATION FOR PERMISSION IA No. 55393/2020 - INTERVENTION APPLICATION IA No. 55022/2020 - PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES) Diary No(s). 12051/2020 (PIL-W) (FOR APPLICATION FOR PERMISSION ON IA 76856/2020 FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING AFFIDAVIT ON IA 76857/2020 IA No. 76856/2020 - APPLICATION FOR PERMISSION IA No. 76857/2020 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING AFFIDAVIT) Date : 26-11-2020 These matters were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. BOPANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN For Petitioner(s) Petitioner-in-person Ms. Mohini Priya, AOR Mr. Ivan,Adv. Mr. Shiv Kumar Pandey,Adv. Mr. Awanish Kumar,Adv. Mr. Chandrashekhar A. Chakalabbi,Adv. Mr. Anshul Rai,Adv. M/S. Dharmaprabhas Law Associates, AOR For Respondent(s) Mr. Tushar Mehta,SG Mr. Zoheb Hussain,Adv. Mr. Rajat Nair,Dav.

2 Mr. Kanu Agarwal,Adv. Ms. Swati Ghildiyal,Adv. Mr. Raj Bahadur Yadav,AOR Mr. Tushar Mehta,SG Mr. Rajat Nair,Adv. Mr. kanu Agarwal,Adv. Mr. Adit Khorana,Adv. Mr. B.V. Balram Das,AOR Mr. Tushar Mehta,SG Mr. Gurmeet Singh Makker, AOR Mr. Kanu Agrawal,Adv. Ms. Swati Ghildiyal,Adv. Mr. Zoheb Hossain,Adv. Mr. Rajat Nair,Adv. Mr. Adit Khorana,Adv. Mr. Harish Salve,Sr.Adv. Mr. Mahesh Agarwal,Adv. Ms. Parul Shukla,Adv. Mr. E. C. Agrawala, AOR Mr. Mahesh Agarwal,Adv. Mr. Rohan Talwar,Adv. Mr. E. C. Agrawala, AOR Mr. Suhaan Mukerji,Adv. Ms. Liz Mathew,Adv. Mr. Nikhil Parikshith,Adv. Mr. Abhishek Manchanda,Adv. Mr. Neeraj Kishan kaul,Sr.Adv. Mr. Rajeev Maheshwaranand Roy, AOR Mr. Aniruddha A.Joshi,Adv. Mr. P. Srinivasan,Adv. Mr. Akash lamba,Adv. Mr. Jayant Muthuraj,Sr.Adv. Mr. M.Yogesh Kanna, AOR Mr. Rajarajeswaran S.,Adv. Mr. Aditya Chada,Adv. Mr. Siddhesh Kotwal,Adv. Mr. Divyansh Tiwari,Adv. Ms. Astha Sharma, AOR Mr.Manish Kumar,Adv. Mr. V.K. Shukla,Adv. Mr. Siddhartha Shukla,Adv. Mr. Prithvijoy Das,Adv. Mr. Satish Kumar, AOR

3 Mr. Chirag M. Shroff,Adv. Ms. Abhilasha Bharti,Adv. Mr. Sohel Rishabh,Adv. Ms. K. Enatoli Sema, AOR Mr. Amit Kumar Singh,Adv. Mr. Shuvodeep Roy, AOR Mr. kabir Shankar Bose,Adv. Mr. Nalin Kohli,AAG Mr. Shuvodeep Roy,AOR Mr. Ankit Roy,Adv. Mr. Abhimanyu Tewari, AOR Ms. Eliza Bar,Adv. Mr. V. N. Raghupathy, AOR Mr. Sachin Patil,Adv. Mr. Rahul Chitnis,Adv. Mr. Geo Joseph,Adv. Mr. Manish Kumar, AOR Mr. Sahil Raveen,Adv. Ms. Priyanka Prakash,Adv. Ms. Beena Prakash,Adv. Mr. G. Prakash,AOR Mr. V.G. Pragasam,Adv. Mr. S. Prabu Ramasubramanian,Adv. Mr. Aman Lekhi,ASG Mr. Bhaskar Bhardwaj,Adv. Mr. Devashish Bharuka, AOR Mr. Amit Kumar,Adv.Gen Mr. Avijit Mani Tripathi, AOR Mr. Shaurya Sahay,Adv. Mr. T.K. Nayak,Adv. Mr. Manoj Gorkela,Adv. Ms. K. Vaijayanthi,Adv. Ms. Manisha Chava,Adv. Mr. Karan Arora,Adv. Ms. Manisha Sharma,Adv. Ms. Manisha T. Karia, AOR M/S. PLR Chambers And Co., AOR Appellant-in-person

4 Ms. G. Indira, AOR Mr. K.V.Jagdishvaran,Adv. Mr. Anand Grover,Sr.Adv. Mr. Irshaan Kakar,Adv. Ms. Nupur Kumar, AOR Mr. Pukhrambam Ramesh Kumar, AOR Mr. Raghvendra Kumar,Adv. Mr. Anand Kumar Dubey,Dv. Mr. Narendra Kumar, AOR UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R I.A. No. 77031 of 2020 for impleadment is allowed. List the matter(s) after two weeks. (MADHU BALA) (INDU KUMARI POKHRIYAL) AR-CUM-PS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

ITEM NO.7 Court 1 (Video Conferencing) SECTION PIL-W S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Writ Petition(s)(Civil) No(s). 1292/2020 AJAY AGRAWAL Petitioner(s) VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ANR. Respondent(s) (FOR ADMISSION and IA No.116199/2020-PERMISSION TO APPEAR AND ARGUE IN PERSON ) Date : 24-11-2020 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. BOPANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN For Petitioner(s) Petitioner-in-person For Respondent(s) UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Permission to appear and argue in person is granted. Issue notice returnable within two weeks. Tag with W.P.(C)No. 863 of 2020. (MADHU BALA) (INDU KUMARI POKHRIYAL) AR-CUM-PS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

1 ITEM NO.16 Court 1 (Video Conferencing) SECTION PIL-W S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Writ Petition(s)(Civil) No(s). 863/2020 SACHIN JAIN Petitioner(s) VERSUS UNION OF INDIA Respondent(s) (IA No. 92178/2020 - APPROPRIATE ORDERS/DIRECTIONS IA No.92181/2020 - EARLY HEARING APPLICATION IA No. 103135/2020 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING AFFIDAVIT IA No. 101999/2020 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING AFFIDAVIT) WITH W.P.(C) No. 489/2020 (PIL-W) (FOR ADMISSION IA No. 55396/2020 - APPLICATION FOR PERMISSION IA No. 55393/2020 - INTERVENTION APPLICATION IA No. 55022/2020 - PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES) Diary No(s). 12051/2020 (PIL-W) (FOR APPLICATION FOR PERMISSION ON IA 76856/2020 FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING AFFIDAVIT ON IA 76857/2020 IA No. 76856/2020 - APPLICATION FOR PERMISSION IA No. 76857/2020 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING AFFIDAVIT) Date : 26-10-2020 These matters were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. BOPANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN For the Parties Ms. Mohini Priya, AOR Mr. Ivan, Adv. Mr. Awanish Kumar, Adv. Mr. S.IK. Pandey, Adv. Mr. Chandrashekhar Chakallabi, Adv. For M/S. Dharmaprabhas Law Associates, AOR Petitioner-in-person Ms. Manisha T. Karia, AOR Ms. Nidhi Nagpal, Adv. Mr. Adarsh Kumar, Adv. Sukhda Karla, Adv.

2 Mr. Suhan Mukerji, Adv. Mrs. Liz Matthew, Adv. Mr. Vishal Prasad, Adv. Mr. Nikhil Parikshith, Adv. Mr. Abhishek Manchanda, Adv. Mr. Sayandeep Pahari, Adv. for M/S. Plr Chambers And Co., AOR Appellant-in-person, AOR Mr. K.V. Jagdishvaran, Adv. Ms. G. Indira, AOR Ms. Rangoli Seth, Adv. Mr. Anand Grover, Sr. Adv. Mr. Irshaan Kakar, Adv. Ms. Nupur Kumar, AOR Mr. Pukhrambam Ramesh Kumar, AOR Ms. Anupama Ngangom, Adv. Mr. Karun Sharma, Adv. Mr. Harish Salve, Sr. Adv. Mr. Mahesh Agarwal, Adv. Ms. Parul Shukla, Adv. Mr. Rohan Talwar, Adv. Mr. E. C. Agrawala, AOR Mr. Raghvendra Kumar, Adv. Mr. Anand Kumar Dubey, Adv. Mr. Narendra Kumar, AOR Mr. Tushar Mehta, SG Mr. zoheb Hossain, Adv. Mr. Rajat Nair, Adv. Ms. Swati Ghildyal, Adv. Mr. Kanu Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Adit Khorana, Adv. Mr. Gurmeet Singh Makker, AOR Mr. Raj Bahadur, AOR Mr. B.V. Balram Das, AOR Mr. M. Yogesh Kanna, AOR Mr. Rajarejeshwaran, Adv. Mr. siddhesh Kotwal, Adv. Ms. Arshiya Ghose, Adv. Mr. Divyansh Tiwari, Adv. Ms. Ana Upadhyay, Adv. Ms. Mantika Haryani, Adv. Ms. Astha Sharma, AOR

3 Mr. Manish Kumar, Adv. Ms. Swagoti Batchas, Adv. Mr. SPM Tripathi, Adv. Mr. Satish Kumar, AOR Ms. K. Enatoli Sema, AOR Mr. Amit Kumar Singh, Adv. Mr. Shuvodeep Roy, AOR Mr. Kabir Shankar Bose, Adv. Mr. Rahul Raj Mishra, Adv. Ms. Eliza Bar, Adv. Mr. Abhimanyu Tewari, AOR Mr. V. N. Raghupathy, AOR Mr. Neeraj Kishan Kaul, Sr. Adv. Mr. Rajeev Maheshwaranand Roy, AOR Mr. P. Srinivasan, Adv. Mr. Akash Lamba, Adv. Mr. Manish Kumar, AOR Mr. Devashish Bharuka, AOR Mr. amit Kumar, Advocate General, Adv. Mr. Avijit Mani Tripathi, AOR Mr. U. Mishra, Adv. Mr. T.K. Nayak, Adv. Mr. Chirag M. Shroff, Adv. Ms. Abhilasha Bharti, Adv. Ms. Akanksha Das, Adv. Ms. Neetica Sharma, Adv. For M/s. M.V. Kini & Associates, AOR Mr. V.G. Pragasam, Adv. Mr. S. Prabu Ramasubramanian, Adv. Ms. Uttara Babbar, Adv. Mr. Sachin Patil, Adv. Mr. Rahul Chitnis, Adv. Mr. Geo Joseph, Adv. Ms. Priyanka Prakash, Adv. Mr. G. Prakash, AOR Mr. Siddharth Bhatnagar, Sr. Adv. Ms. Astha Prasad, AOR Mr. Peeush Sharma, Adv.

4 Mr. Shaurya Mitra Tomar, Adv. Mr. Bharvi Thakur, Adv. Mr. Kartikey Nayyar, Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Application for intervention is allowed. Paragraph 6 of the affidavit filed by the Petitioner-in-Person is hereby struck out as being unnecessary and scurrilous. Petitioner-in-Person is permitted to file a fresh affidavit. List after two weeks. (GULSHAN KUMAR ARORA) (INDU KUMARI POKHRIYAL) AR-CUM-PS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

1 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA ORIGINAL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.863 OF 2020 SACHIN JAIN … PETITIONER Versus UNION OF INDIA  … RESPONDENT WITH WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.489 OF 2020 DIARY NO.12051 OF 2020 O  R  D  E  R 1. The petitioner, who is an advocate practising in this Court has come up with the above writ petition seeking the issue of an appropriate writ  (i)  directing the Union of India to regulate the cost of treatment of patients infected with COVID­19, at Private/Corporate

2 hospitals across the country,  (ii)  directing the Union of India to mandate the private hospitals set up on public land, allotted at concessional rates either on the ground that those hospitals are run by charitable institutions or otherwise, to treat COVID­19 patients either free of cost or on non­profit basis,  (iii)  directing the Union of India to bear the cost of treatment of COVID­19 patients at private hospitals, for the poor and vulnerable and who have neither the means nor the insurance cover, by expanding the coverage under Public Health Schemes such as  Ayushman Bharat  and  (iv)  directing the Union of India to combat the commercialisation of health care by private health sector. 2. It is the case of the writ petitioner that WHO declared COVID­19 as a pandemic on 11.03.2020; that in exercise of the power conferred by Section 2(1)(i) read with Section 10 of the Disaster Management Act, 2005, the Ministry of Health, Government of India, issued an order dated 21.03.2020 containing guidelines capping the maximum cost chargeable by private laboratories for testing COVID­19; that the Ministry of Home Affairs issued an order dated 24.03.2020 for implementation of various measures across the country for treatment of COVID­19, while ensuring maintenance of essential services and supplies, including health infrastructure; that thereafter the

3 mainstream media was abuzz with stories of private hospitals fleecing the patients for treatment; that pursuant to a meeting held on 07.04.2020 between the representatives of 8 major private hospitals in Delhi and the Government of NCT of Delhi, the Government declared some private hospitals as dedicated hospitals for treatment of COVID­ 19 patients on payment basis; and that thereafter there have been reports of such private hospitals exploiting the patients and the insurance companies objecting to inflated bills raised by the private hospitals. It is with these pleadings of facts that the petitioner has come up with the above writ petition.  3.  On 30.04.2020, this Court ordered the issue of notice to the Union of India. Thereafter, 2 individuals and 3 associations of persons came up with applications for intervention in the matter.  4.  After allowing 4 intervention applications, this court, by an order dated 14­07­2020, directed all the parties to make representations to the Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare with a further direction to the Secretary to hear the parties and come up with a solution. 5.  Accordingly, the various stakeholders before this court gave representations both in writing and in person, to the Secretary on 16­ 07­2020. Thereafter, the Government of India filed a report containing

4 a normative guidance that could be provided to the States for appropriate action, as ‘health’ is a State subject. The intervenors have filed their responses to these guiding principles evolved by the Government of India. 6.  We have perused the pleadings and the report of the Union of India as well as the responses/suggestions provided by the different stakeholders. But as rightly pointed out by the Government of India ‘Health and Hospitals’ is a subject that falls in Entry 6 of List­II of the Constitution. Neither the writ petitioner has taken care to implead the State Governments as parties nor have any of the respondents/ intervenors taken note of the existence or otherwise of the legislative framework within which we could look for better solutions.  7.  ‘Health’ has always been a State subject. “ Public Health”  fell in Entry­3 of Part­II relating to Provincial Subjects under the Government of India Act, 1919. It was included in Entry 14 of Part­II under the Government of India Act, 1935.  8.  Taking advantage of the same, the Madras Legislature took the lead by enacting the Madras Public Health Act, 1939. A few States have followed suit. Now we have (1) The Travancore­Cochin Public Health Act, 1955, (2) The Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Public Health

5 Act, 1939 (3) The Goa, Daman and Diu Public Health Act, 1985 (4) Madhya Pradesh Public Health Act, 1949, (5) The Puducherry Public Health Act, 1973 (6) Gujarat Public Health Act, 2009 and (7) Assam Public Health Act, 2010. 9.  Since only a few States took advantage of the subject of “public Health” being a State subject, the Government of India made attempts twice, first in 1955 and then in 1987 to activate the States to pass legislations, on the model prepared by the Government of India under the caption “Model Public Health Act”. 10.  But the State Governments did not act. Therefore, following a mandate from the WHO in the form of International Health Regulations (IHR, 2005), to which India is a signatory, another attempt was made by the Government of India by proposing a National Health Bill, 2009.   The preamble to the Bill as well the provisions contained therein   encapsulates the essence of good governance in a welfare State .     11.   It is heartening (or at least of interest) to note that the first word to be defined in the National Health Bill, 2009, was “affordable” . The words “endemic”, “epidemic”, “health care establishment”, “health care provider”, etc. are all defined in the Bill.

6 The definition of the expression “health care establishment” included any private institution whether for profit or not, which is operated or designed to provide in­patient and/or out­patient healthcare.   12.  Section 3(c) and (d) of the Bill incorporates very high ideals (whether followed in practice or not). These clauses read as follows: “(c) Provide free and universal access to health care services and  ensure that there shall not be any denial of health care directly or indirectly, to anyone, by any health care service provider, public or private, including for profit and not for profit service providers,  by laying down minimum standards and appropriate regulatory mechanism; Provided that notwithstanding the above  the Governments have an immediate duty to prioritize the most vulnerable and marginalized persons and groups, who are unable themselves to access means for adequate and appropriate health care services , and ensuring them at least the minimum conditions of health care;  (d)  Ensure comprehensive involvement of civil society, especially vulnerable or marginalized individuals/ groups, including by enabling them to effectively articulate their health needs and to participate in all health related decision­making processes, including in setting health priorities and goals; and in devising, planning, implementing and evaluating the policies and strategies for health and well­being at every level; also integrally incorporating their roles and participation in the contents of such policies, strategies and

7 plans; and ensuring demonstrably serious consideration to diverse expert views, in the planning of health care;” 13.  Section 6 enlists specific public health obligations of the Central Government and the State Governments. Sections 8 and 9 respectively recognise (i) the right to health, and (ii) the right to access, use and enjoy all facilities necessary for ensuring the right to health. These provisions read as follows: “8. Right to health:  (1) Every person has the right to a standard of physical and mental health conducive to living a life in dignity. 9. Right to access, use and enjoy:  Every person has the right to access, use and enjoy all the facilities, goods, services, programmes and conditions necessary for ensuring the right to health, including but not limited to at least the following:  (a) Right to food;  (b) Right to water;  (c) Right to sanitation;  (d) Right to housing;  (e) Right to appropriate health care, and health care related functional equipment and other infrastructure, trained medical and professional personnel, and essential drugs; Appropriate health­related IEC, including on sexual and reproductive health, to be able to make more informed health related choices;  Explanation: The information hereunder, where needed for the purposes of fulfillment of this Act, shall not be limited

8 to, and shall be in addition to, the information receivable under the Right to Information Act, 2005.  (f) Protection from and mitigation during environmental disasters like famines, floods, and earthquakes, disease outbreaks/ epidemics, and other public health emergencies; (g) Protection from and abatement of hazardous and injurious substances and activities; road and transport safety; industrial hygiene and occupational safety; hygiene and safety in places and situations of large collection of people occasioning mass food production or disposal of biological wastes including at fairs, festivals, cinema, theatres, circuses, markets, shopping places, malls, lodging houses, burial and burning grounds, slaughter houses; and (h) Health Impact Assessment (HIA) of all new development projects…” 14.  Section 10 guarantees a right against discrimination, Section 11 guarantees right to dignity, Section 12 guarantees right to participation and information and Section 13 guarantees right to justice. Section 14 enlists the users’ rights to health care.  Sub­section (4) of Section 14 guarantees to every individual, a right to emergency treatment and care, irrespective of his inability to pay the requisite fee or charges.  This provision makes it clear that even private players are obliged to honour such right of every individual to emergency treatment and care . The Bill also contemplates the establishment of a National Public Health Board and

9 State Public Health Boards for every State.  15.  The Bill even provides for the  establishment of an intensive accountability framework  through certain methods of monitoring, such as (i) health information systems, (ii) Government monitoring, and (iii) community­based monitoring. There are also provisions for establishing a mechanism for public dialogues and public hearings ( Swasthya Jan Sunwais ).  16.  But the National Health Bill, 2009 also did not see the light of the day. The net result is that the States which have the legislative competence, have failed to act. The Centre is unable to act, for want of competence. But fortunately, the Central Government is empowered under section 62 of the Disaster Management Act, 2005, to issue certain directions.  17.  In such circumstances, we are of the considered view (i) that the States and Union Territories could be impleaded suo moto as parties and (ii) that for the present, certain limited directions could be issued.  18.  Therefore, the Union of India is hereby directed to do the following:–

10 (i)  A meeting of the Health Ministers/Secretaries of all States and Union Territories may be convened within one week from today (ii) In the said meeting, all the States and Union Territories, may be advised to come up, within 2 weeks of the first meeting, with a master plan, both legislative and executive, taking cue from the already existing Public Health Acts of various States and also taking cue from the National Health Bill, 2009, which focuses on the marginalized sections of society  (iii) Thereafter, a second meeting of the Health Ministers/ Secretaries of all States and Union Territories may be convened for the purpose of collating the information received from the States and Union Territories regarding the steps taken by the States  (iv)  After receipt of the information from all the States and Union Territories, the Government of India may file a comprehensive report with a compilation of the information received from the States and Union Territories  (v)  The States which already have Public Health Acts, may be advised to fine­tune their existing enactments, on the model of the National Health Bill, 2009. 19.  In the meantime, all the State Governments and Union

11 Territories are suo moto impleaded as parties to this writ petition. Issue notice to the State Governments and Union Territories. Application for impleadment filed by General Insurance Council is allowed. List the matter after four weeks.    ………… ....................CJI.      (S. A. Bobde) ...…………....................J.       (A. S. Bopanna) …..………......................J. (V. Ramasubramanian) AUGUST  31,  2020 NEW DELHI

12 ITEM NO.18 Court 1 (Video Conferencing) SECTION PIL-W S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Writ Petition(s)(Civil) No(s). 863/2020 SACHIN JAIN Petitioner(s) VERSUS UNION OF INDIA Respondent(s) (FOR ADMISSION and IA No.51899/2020-GRANT OF INTERIM RELIEF and IA No.49494/2020-EARLY HEARING APPLICATION and IA No.51677/2020-EARLY HEARING APPLICATION and IA No.51866/2020-INTERVENTION APPLICATION and IA No.51673/2020-INTERVENTION APPLICATION and IA No.51682/2020- INTERVENTION APPLICATION and IA No.70047/2020-INTERVENTION APPLICATION and IA No.48304/2020-APPLICATION FOR HEARING DURING VACATION and IA No.70048/2020-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. and IA No.71992/2020-EXEMPTION FROM FILING AFFIDAVIT and IA No.49495/2020- EXEMPTION FROM FILING AFFIDAVIT and IA No.58200/2020-EXEMPTION FROM FILING AFFIDAVIT and IA No.60658/2020-EXEMPTION FROM FILING AFFIDAVIT and IA No.49491/2020-INTERVENTION/IMPLEADMENT and IA No.77031/2020-INTERVENTION/IMPLEADMENT and IA No.49493/2020- PERMISSION TO APPEAR AND ARGUE IN PERSON and IA No.48305/2020- PERMISSION TO APPEAR AND ARGUE IN PERSON and IA No.59281/2020- APPROPRIATE ORDERS/DIRECTIONS and IA No.62188/2020-PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES and IA No.51868/2020- APPLICATION FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING ORIGINAL VAKALATNAMA/OTHER DOCUMENT and IA No.48303/2020-APPLICATION FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING ORIGINAL VAKALATNAMA/OTHER DOCUMENT and IA No.51683/2020- APPLICATION FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING ORIGINAL VAKALATNAMA/OTHER DOCUMENT IA No. 51868/2020 - APPLICATION FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING ORIGINAL VAKALATNAMA/OTHER DOCUMENTIA No. 51683/2020 - APPLICATION FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING ORIGINAL VAKALATNAMA/OTHER DOCUMENT IA No. 48303/2020 - APPLICATION FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING ORIGINAL VAKALATNAMA/OTHER DOCUMENT IA No. 48304/2020 - APPLICATION FOR HEARING DURING VACATIONIA No. 59281/2020 - APPROPRIATE ORDERS/DIRECTIONS IA No. 49494/2020 - EARLY HEARING APPLICATION IA No. 51677/2020 - EARLY HEARING APPLICATION IA No. 49495/2020 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING AFFIDAVIT IA No. 58200/2020 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING AFFIDAVIT IA No. 60658/2020 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING AFFIDAVIT IA No. 70048/2020 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. IA No. 51899/2020 - GRANT OF INTERIM RELIEF IA No. 51673/2020 - INTERVENTION APPLICATION IA No. 51866/2020 - INTERVENTION APPLICATION IA No. 70047/2020 - INTERVENTION APPLICATION IA No. 51682/2020 - INTERVENTION APPLICATION IA No. 49491/2020 – INTERVENTION/IMPLEADMENT IA No. 49493/2020 - PERMISSION TO APPEAR AND ARGUE IN PERSON IA No. 48305/2020 - PERMISSION TO APPEAR AND ARGUE IN PERSONIA No. 62188/2020 - PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES AND I.A. NO. 79186 OF 2020 – APPLICATION FOR IMPLEADMENT, I.A. NO. 79187 OF 2020 – APPLICATION FOR EXEMPTION

13 FROM FILING O.T. AND I.A. NO. 79188 – APPLICATION FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING ATTESTED AFFIDAVIT) WITH W.P.(C) No. 489/2020 (PIL-W) (FOR ADMISSION IA No. 55396/2020 - APPLICATION FOR PERMISSION IA No. 55393/2020 - INTERVENTION APPLICATION IA No. 55022/2020 - PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES) Diary No(s). 12051/2020 (PIL-W) (FOR APPLICATION FOR PERMISSION ON IA 76856/2020 FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING AFFIDAVIT ON IA 76857/2020 IA No. 76856/2020 - APPLICATION FOR PERMISSION IA No. 76857/2020 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING AFFIDAVIT) Date : 31-08-2020 These matters were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. BOPANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN For Petitioner(s) In-person Ms. Mohini Priya, AOR Mr. Ivan,Adv. Mr. S.K. Pandey,Adv. Mr. Awanish Kumar,Adv. Mr. Chandrashekhar A.C.,Adv. Mr. Anshul Raj,Adv. M/S. Dharmaprabhas Law Associates, AOR For Respondent(s) Mr. Tushar Mehta, Ld. SG Mr. Gurmeet Singh Makker,Adv. Mr. Kanu Agrawal,Adv. Ms. Swati Ghildiyal,Adv. Mr. Zoheb Hossain,Adv. Mr. Rajat Nair,Adv. Mr. Harish Salve,Sr.Adv. Mr. Mahesh Agarwal,Adv. Ms. Parul Shukla,Adv. Mr. E. C. Agrawala, AOR Mr. Neeraj Kishan Kaul,Sr.Adv. Mr. Rajeev Maheshwaranand Roy, AOR Mr. P. Srinivasan,Adv. Mr. Akash lamba,Adv.

14 Mr. Aman Lekhi ASG Mr. Bhaskar Bhardwaj Adv. Mr. Devashish Bharuka,AOR Ms. Manisha T. Karia, AOR Appellant-in-person Mr.Irshaan Kakkar, Adv Ms. Nupur Kumar, AOR UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Application for impleadment filed by General Insurance Council is allowed. List the matter after four weeks in terms of the signed order. (MADHU BALA) (INDU KUMARI POKHRIYAL) AR-CUM-PS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR (Signed order is placed on the file)

1 ITEM NO.16 Court No.1 (Video Conferencing) SECTION PIL-W S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) Diary No(s). 10918/2020 SACHIN JAIN Petitioner(s) VERSUS UNION OF INDIA Respondent(s) (With IA No. 51683/2020 - APPLICATION FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING ORIGINAL VAKALATNAMA/OTHER DOCUMENT and IA No. 48303/2020 - APPLICATION FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING ORIGINAL VAKALATNAMA/OTHER DOCUMENT and IA No. 51868/2020 - APPLICATION FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING ORIGINAL VAKALATNAMA/OTHER DOCUMENT and IA No. 48304/2020 - APPLICATION FOR HEARING DURING VACATION IA No. 59281/2020 - APPROPRIATE ORDERS/DIRECTIONS IA No. 51677/2020 - EARLY HEARING APPLICATION IA No. 49494/2020 - EARLY HEARING APPLICATION IA No. 60658/2020 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING AFFIDAVIT IA No. 49495/2020 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING AFFIDAVIT IA No. 58200/2020 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING AFFIDAVIT IA No. 70048/2020 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. IA No. 51899/2020 - GRANT OF INTERIM RELIEF IA No. 70047/2020 - INTERVENTION APPLICATION IA No. 51682/2020 - INTERVENTION APPLICATION IA No. 51673/2020 - INTERVENTION APPLICATION IA No. 51866/2020 - INTERVENTION APPLICATION IA No. 49491/2020 - INTERVENTION/IMPLEADMENT IA No. 48305/2020 - PERMISSION TO APPEAR AND ARGUE IN PERSON IA No. 49493/2020 - PERMISSION TO APPEAR AND ARGUE IN PERSON IA No. 62188/2020 - PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES) WITH W.P.(C) No. 489/2020 (PIL-W) (FOR ADMISSION and IA No. 55396/2020 - APPLICATION FOR PERMISSION and IA No. 55393/2020 - INTERVENTION APPLICATION and IA No. 55022/2020 - PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ ANNEXURES) Date : 05-08-2020 These matters were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. BOPANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN For Petitioner(s) Mr. Sachin Jain – in – Person Mr. Shiv Kumar Pandey, Adv. Mr. Awanish Kumar, Adv. Mr. Chandrashekhar A. Chakalabbi, Adv. Mr. Anshul Rai, Adv.

2 Mr. Shiv kumar pandey, Adv. Mr. Awanish Kumar, Adv. Mr. Chandrashekhar A.C, Adv. Mr. Anshul Rai, Adv. For M/s Dharmaprabhas Law Associates, AOR For Respondent(s)/ Mr. Anand Grover, Sr. Adv. Applicant(s) Mr. Mihir Desai, Sr. Adv. Mr. Irshaan Kakar, Adv. Ms. Nupur Kumar, AOR Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, Sr. Adv. Mr. Mahesh Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Rohan Talwar, Adv. Mr. E. C. Agrawala, AOR Mr. Harish Salve, Senior Advocate, Mr. Mahesh Agarwal, Advocate, Ms. Parul Shukla, Advocate, Mr. E.C. Agrawala, AOR Mr. Tushar Mehta, Ld. SG Mr. Zoheb Hossain, Adv. Mr. Kanu Agarwal, Adv. Ms. Swati Ghildiyal, Adv. Mr. Rajat Nair, Adv. Mr. Gurmeet Singh Makker, AOR Mr. Sidharth Luthra, Sr. Adv. Ms. Manisha T. Karia, AOR Ms. Nidhi Nagpal, Adv. Mr. Adarsh Kumar, Adv. Mr./Ms. Sukhda Karla, Adv. Mr. Ayush Kaushik, Adv. Ms. Ankita Tiwari, Adv. Applicant-in-person UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Issue notice on I.A. No.70047/2020. List these matters after 15 days for final disposal. (SANJAY KUMAR-II) (INDU KUMARI POKHRIYAL) ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

ITEM NO.18 Court 5 (Video Conferencing) SECTION PIL-W S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL)...... Diary No(s). 12051/2020 SIRAJ JONDHALE Petitioner(s) VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Respondent(s) (FOR ADMISSION and IA No.53544/2020-EXEMPTION FROM PAYING COURT FEE) Date : 27-07-2020 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK BHUSHAN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.R. SHAH For Petitioner(s) Ms. Mohini Priya, AOR Mr. Ivan, Adv. For Respondent(s) UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Tag with Writ Petition(C) Diary No.10918 of 2020 (Sachin Jain vs. Union of India & Ors.) (ARJUN BISHT) (RENU KAPOOR) COURT MASTER (SH) BRANCH OFFICER

ITEM NO.17 Court 5 (Video Conferencing) SECTION PIL-W S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Writ Petition(s)(Civil) No(s). 489/2020 AVISHEK GOENKA Petitioner(s) VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ANR. Respondent(s) (FOR IA No. 55396/2020 - APPLICATION FOR PERMISSION and IA No. 55393/2020 - INTERVENTION APPLICATION and IA No. 55022/2020 - PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES) Date : 23-07-2020 This matter was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK BHUSHAN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.R. SHAH For Petitioner(s) Mr. Shiv Kumar Pandey, Adv. Mr. Awanish Kumar, Adv. Mr. Chandrashekhar A. Chakalabbi, Adv. Mr. Anshul Rai, Adv. For M/S. Dharmaprabhas Law Associates, AOR For Respondent(s) Mr. Tushar Mehta, SG Mr. K.M. Nataraj, ASG Mr. G.S. Makker, AOR Mr. Rajat Nair, Adv. Mr. Kanu Agrawal, Adv. Mr. B.V. Balram Das, AOR UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Learned counsel appearing for the intervenor submits that Writ Petition (C) Diary No. 10918/2020 titled Sachin Jain v. Union of India and Ors. is already under consideration of this Court, where the issue has been taken for consideration. Reference has also been made to the order dated 14.07.2020 passed by 3 Judges’ Bench. Tag this petition with Writ Petition (C) D. No. 10918/2020. (MEENAKSHI KOHLI) (RENU KAPOOR) AR-CUM-PS COURT MASTER

ITEM NO.10 Virtual Court 7 SECTION PIL-W S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) Diary No(s). 12051/2020 SIRAJ JONDHALE Petitioner(s) VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Respondent(s) (FOR ADMISSION and IA No.53544/2020-EXEMPTION FROM PAYING COURT FEE Date : 20-07-2020 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY [IN CHAMBER] For Petitioner(s) Ms. Mohini Priya, AOR Mr.Ivan, Adv. For Respondent(s) UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Heard Ms. Mohini Priya, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also noted the pleadings in the application seeking exemption from filing duly affirmed affidavit and court fee. Upon due consideration, the exemption sought is allowed. The Registry to proceed accordingly. (SUSHMA KUMARI BAJAJ) (DIPTI KHURANA) SENIOR PERSONAL ASSISTANT COURT MASTER (NSH)

1 ITEM NO.20 Court No.1 SECTION PIL-W (By Virtual Hearing) S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) Diary No(s). 10918/2020 SACHIN JAIN Petitioner(s) VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Respondent(s) (WITH IA No. 51868/2020 - APPLICATION FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING ORIGINAL VAKALATNAMA/OTHER DOCUMENT and IA No. 51683/2020 - APPLICATION FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING ORIGINAL VAKALATNAMA/OTHER DOCUMENT and IA No. 48303/2020 - APPLICATION FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING ORIGINAL VAKALATNAMA/OTHER DOCUMENT and IA No. 48304/2020 - APPLICATION FOR HEARING DURING VACATION and IA No. 59281/2020 - APPROPRIATE ORDERS/DIRECTIONS and IA No. 51677/2020 - EARLY HEARING APPLICATION and IA No. 49494/2020 - EARLY HEARING APPLICATION and IA No. 60658/2020 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING AFFIDAVIT and IA No. 49495/2020 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING AFFIDAVIT and IA No. 58200/2020 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING AFFIDAVIT and IA No. 51899/2020 - GRANT OF INTERIM RELIEF and IA No. 51866/2020 - INTERVENTION APPLICATION and IA No. 51682/2020 - INTERVENTION APPLICATION and IA No. 51673/2020 - INTERVENTION APPLICATION and IA No. 49491/2020 – INTERVENTION/IMPLEADMENT and IA No. 49493/2020 - PERMISSION TO APPEAR AND ARGUE IN PERSON and IA No. 48305/2020 - PERMISSION TO APPEAR AND ARGUE IN PERSON) Date : 14-07-2020 The matter(s) was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. BOPANNA For Petitioner(s) Petitioner-in-person For Respondent(s)/ Applicant(s) Applicant(s)-in-person Mr. Harish Salve, Sr. Adv. Mr. Mahesh Agarwal, Adv. Ms. Parul Shukla, Adv. Mr. E.C. Agrawala, AOR. Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, Sr. Adv. Mr. Mahesh Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Rohan Talwar, Adv. Mr. E. C. Agrawala, AOR

2 Mr. Tushar Mehta, Ld. SG Mr. Kanu Agrawal, Adv. Ms. Swati Ghilgiyal, Adv. Mr. Rajat Nair, Adv. Mr. Gurmeet Singh Makker, AOR Mr. Raj Bahadur Yadav, Adv. Mr. Anand Grover, Sr. Adv. Mr. Mihir Desai, Sr. Adv. Mr. Irshaan Kakkar, Adv. Ms. Nupur Kumar, AOR Mr. Mihir Desai, Sr. Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R We have heard the matter at some length. The basic prayer of the petitioner is that there should be a nation-wide cost related regulation for treatment of COVID-19 patients at private/corporate hospitals. It is alleged by the petitioner that the private/corporate hospitals are commercially exploiting the patients suffering from COVID-19 by charging exorbitant charges. As such, it is submitted that the patients, who cannot afford such huge costs, are deprived of proper treatment. We completely agree that the cost of medical treatment for COVID-19 should not act as a deterrent to the patients suffering from the said pandemic resulting in denial of access to medical care. No one should be deprived of access to the medical care, because of the high cost towards the charges for treatment of COVID-19.

3 At the same time, we also fully agree with the submissions of Sri Harish Salve and Sri Mukul Rohatgi, learned senior counsel, appearing for the respondents that it is not possible to determine/lay down the uniform cost structure, for treatment of patients suffering from COVID-19 through out the country, inasmuch as the cost structure varies from State to State and Union Territory to Union Territory, depending upon the conditions and the availability of medical facilities. There is unanimity among all that the cost of treatment for COVID-19 is not and cannot be the same in all the States/Union Territories. We, therefore, consider it inequitous to impose a ceiling on the charges for treatment of COVID-19. The learned counsel have placed before us different models adopted by some States for regulating COVID-19 treatment in private/corporate hospitals. Sri Anand Grover, learned senior counsel and the petitioner – Sachin Jain have also brought to our notice that some States have notified the guidelines for treatment of patients of COVID-19. There has been a debate before us about the suitability of various models adopted by States, particularly about which model should be recommended by Union of India to other States. However, there is a divergence of opinion on this issue which we are not inclined to go into because it is not possible for us to

4 determine which model is suitable for which State. Parties agree that the circumstances in each State are vastly different. We, therefore, decline to consider this aspect any further. In absence of complete details from each of the States/Union Territories, it is not possible for this Court to decide which model is best, for treatment of COVID-19 patients. Sri Tushar Mehta, learned Solicitor General appearing for the Union of India, submits that several issues raised by the petitioner in this Writ Petition, have already been addressed by the Government and further the Government is prepared to consider any further suggestions of the petitioner and others to take an appropriate decision. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel and learned Solicitor General, we permit the petitioner party-in-person, learned counsel or their representatives to make a representation in this behalf to the Secretary, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India, who shall meet all the parties concerned of the present petition on 16.07.2020 at New Delhi and an appropriate decision may be taken within a period of one week thereafter. The decision of the said meeting shall be placed before this Court for further consideration of the matter before issuing directions/guidelines under the provisions of the Disaster

5 Management Act, to the various State Governments/Union territories. List the matter for further consideration thereafter. (SANJAY KUMAR-II) (INDU KUMARI POKHRIYAL) ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

ITEM NO.17 Virtual Court 4 SECTION PIL-W S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Writ Petition(s)(Civil) No(s). 489/2020 AVISHEK GOENKA Petitioner(s) VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ANR. Respondent(s) Date : 17-06-2020 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK BHUSHAN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KISHAN KAUL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.R. SHAH For Petitioner(s) Mr. Shiv Kumar Pandey, Adv. Mr. Awanish Kumar, Adv. Mr. Chandrashekhar A. Chakalabbi, Adv. Mr. Anshul Rai, Adv. for M/S. Dharmaprabhas Law Associates For Respondent(s) Mr. Tushar Mehta, Ld. SG Mr. Kanu Agrawal, Adv. Mr. Rajat Nair, Adv. Mr. Gurmeet Singh Makker, AOR Mr. Mihir Desai, Senior Advocate Mr. Irshaan Kakkar, Adv Ms. Nupur Kumar, AOR UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R I.A. No. 53933/2020 [Application for modification] is rejected. Application to bring additional documents on record is allowed. Reply, if any, be filed. List the matter in the second week of July, 2020. (MEENAKSHI KOHLI) (RENU KAPOOR) AR-cum-PS BRANCH OFFICER

1 ITEM NO.1 Virtual Court 1 SECTION PIL-W S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IA No.49119/2020 in WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) Diary No(s). 10918/2020 SACHIN JAIN Petitioner(s) VERSUS UNION OF INDIA Respondent(s) (ONLY IA No. 49119/2020 – EARLY/URGENT HEARING APPLICATION TO BE LISTED and with applications for intervention) Date : 05-06-2020 The application was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. BOPANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY For Petitioner(s) Petitioner-in-person For Respondent(s)/ Mr. Mihir Desai, Sr. Adv. Applicant(s) Mr. Irshaan Kakkar, Adv. Ms. Nupur Kumar, AOR Mr. Harish Salve, Sr. Adv. Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, Sr. Adv. Mr. Mahesh Agarwal, Adv. Ms. Parul Shukla, Adv. Mr. E. C. Agrawala, AOR Mr. Tushar Mehta, Ld. SG Mr. Rajat Nair, Adv. Mr. Kanu Agrawal, Adv. Ms. Swati Ghildiyal, Adv. Mr. Raj Bahadur, Adv. Mr. Gurmeet Singh Makker, AOR Applicant-in-Person UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the instant application for early/urgent hearing. The instant applications for intervention are allowed. List the main matter after two weeks for final hearing.

2 In the meantime, as prayed for, the respondent and all the intervenors are allowed to file their respective reply affidavits. I.A. No.49119/2020 for early/urgent hearing stands disposed of accordingly. (SANJAY KUMAR-II) (INDU KUMARI POKHRIYAL) ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

ITEM NO.18 Virtual Court 5 SECTION PIL-W S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Writ Petition(s)(Civil) No(s).489/2020 AVISHEK GOENKA Petitioner(s) VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ANR. Respondent(s) (FOR ADMISSION) Date : 05-06-2020 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK BHUSHAN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.R. SHAH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN For Petitioner(s) Mr. Shiv Kumar Pandey, Adv. Mr. Awanish Kumar, Adv. Mr. Chandrashekhar A. Chakalabbi, Adv. Mr. Anshul Rai, Adv. M/S. Dharmaprabhas Law Associates, AOR For Respondent(s) UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Learned counsel for the petitioner has confined his prayer only to framing of scheme by the Government regarding charging in the private hospital for COVID-19 treatment. He submits that exorbitant amount is being charged from patients which is neither regulated nor self-regulated. Issue notice. Learned counsel for the petitioner may serve a copy of this petition to the office of learned Solicitor General, who may obtain instructions. List after a week. (ARJUN BISHT) (RENU KAPOOR) COURT MASTER (SH) BRANCH OFFICER

ITEM NO.2 VIRTUAL COURT NO.1 SECTION PIL-W S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IA 49119/2020, in WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) Diary No(s). 10918/2020 SACHIN JAIN Petitioner(s) VERSUS UNION OF INDIA Respondent(s) (ONLY I.A NO. 49119/2020 TO BE LISTED IA No. 49119/2020 - EARLY HEARING APPLICATION) Date : 27-05-2020 This application was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. BOPANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY For Petitioner(s) Mr. Sachin Jain,in-person For Respondent(s) Mr. Tushar Mehta, Ld. S.G. Mr. Rajat Nair, Adv. Ms. Swati Ghildiyal, Adv. Mr. Kanu Agrawal, Adv. Mr. B.V. Balram Das, AOR UPON hearing the Court made the following O R D E R At the request of Shri Tushar Mehta, learned Solicitor General, list after one week. [ CHARANJEET KAUR ] [ INDU KUMARI POKHRIYAL ] ASSTT.REGISTRAR-CUM-PS ASSTT. REGISTRAR

ITEM NO.3 Virtual Court 1 SECTION PIL-W S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) Diary No(s). 10918/2020 SACHIN JAIN Petitioner(s) VERSUS UNION OF INDIA Respondent(s) (WITH APPLN.(S) BEING IA No. 48303/2020 - APPLICATION FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING ATTESTED AFFIDAVIT AND FOR URGENT HEARING AND FOR PERMISSION TO APPEAR AND ARGUE IN PERSON) Date : 30-04-2020 The petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA BOSE For Petitioner(s) Petitioner-in-person For Respondent(s) UPON hearing the petitioner-in-person the Court made the following O R D E R Permission to appear and argue in person is granted. Issue notice. (CHARANJEET KAUR) (SANJAY KUMAR-II) (INDU KUMARI POKHRIYAL) ASTT. REGISTRAR-CUM-PS AR-CUM-PS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR