MUMBAI: Serum Institute of India (SII) CEO Adar Poonawalla has informed Bombay high court that he “has not made requests for Z plus security and does not endorse demands for Z plus security made on his behalf or for him by anyone”.
The statement was sent to the HC registrar on June 10 via a written covering letter through lawyers Parinam Law.
It sought permission to make his statement in a criminal writ petition by lawyer Datta Mane for directions to the state government to grant him Z plus security, citing news reports on alleged threats to him for additional Covishield vaccines.
A bench of Justices S S Shinde and N J Jamadar was hearing the matter, where advocate Pradeep Havnur for Mane, had sought security, saying SII’s vaccines are life-saving.
The petition did not come up for hearing on June 10 due to paucity of time.
On Friday, it was disposed of.
The order is yet to be uploaded.
In its June 1 order, the HC bench of Justices Shinde and Abay Ahuja said it was furnished with a police report dated June 1, which stated that pursuant to the petition, a request for Z category security for Poonawalla was made, and he was provided with Y category security, consisting of CRPF jawans, in addition to two police constables provided by the police commissioner, Pune.
Public prosecutor Deepak Thakare had submitted then that any request for Z category security could be considered after Poonawalla returns from England.
He had sought time to take further instructions after the HC, during the hearing, requested him to “talk to the highest state functionary in the home department… may be the home minister too”, and to make a statement on June 10 on how many personnel were detailed for Poonawalla’s security cover.
The matter had been thus adjourned to June 10.
“Poonawalla is doing such a great job and playing a substantial role by providing crores of vaccines to the nation,’’ the bench had remarked during the June 1 hearing.
On Friday, Thakare submitted, on instructions from the home department, that on Poonawalla’s return to India, if he made any request for security, it would be adequately provided.
The HC said it declined to entertain the petition, then observed that he had not asked for security yet.