New Delhi: “Our shoulder is spacious enough to take any criticism”, the Supreme Court on Tuesday said after a lawyer complained that his argument was not recorded in the order and would create a wrong impression in public.
Judge Dy Chandrachud and Sanjiv Khanna took a serious view of the submission of Nilesh Ojha’s advocate, which as an intervention was sought that his view was recorded in the commandments that were passed on on the Delhi Commission’s request for the protection of children’s rights (DCPCR).
“We don’t want a certificate from you.
Don’t worry.
Our shoulders are spacious enough to take criticism.
We don’t care what people say.
We are not here to please people.
We are here to do justice and we have taken an oath to obey the Constitution” , said Justice Chandrachud.
Ojha said that by not recording its submissions in the order of impression being made in public that the court did not hear people who opposed vaccination programs and only heard pro-vaccine parties.
At first, the bench to Ojha that he as an intervention had to support the causes and prayers made in the main petition and help the court in this matter.
“You as an intervenience cannot claim independent assistance.
You must help the court”, Bench to tell Ojha, ensure that his views not to vaccinate pregnant and breastfeeding mothers have been recorded.
In other petitions related to disabled vaccination, OJHA as an intervention of pleading that disabled people should not be vaccinated by the second dose because there is immunity because the existence of antibodies to viruses in the body and the second dose will not need losses to the public added value.
He claimed that his argument was based on scientific research and study experts published in various journals that said that after vaccinated immunity did not stop.
Judge Chandrachud to Ojha that immunity did not live a lifetime.
The top court left it for the center to take views considered about the suggestions provided by DCPCR for the need to provide effective access to vaccination and tracking targeted in pregnant women and breastfeeding mothers in the event of an adverse event (AEFI).
It is said that the court is aware of the fact that the suggestions that have been made on behalf of DCPCR are policy issues but this has come from a legal entity, and therefore can be considered with the same sense of cooperation as the center has been during petition hearing.
Bench said that the suggestions made by DCPCR are undoubtedly will require the involvement of the application of mind and domains by experts in the area and the court may not be in the best position to make decisions that are not paid by determination.