The Center had also appealed to the Supreme Court that the judges had little experience in dealing with the complexity of many of the challenges which were posed by the Covid-19 epidemic and that management, both the Center and the provinces, in consultation with local experts, were in a difficult position to better manage the situation.
The center said that in the context of the global epidemic, where national response and strategy are entirely driven by the views of medical and scientific experts, there is little room for legal intervention. Any excessive, or well-intentioned intervention, can lead to unintended and unintended consequences, in the absence of any expert advice or management experience, leaving doctors, scientists, specialists and administrators with little space to find new solutions on the go.
The first signs of a backlash in the SC’s oxygen distribution system emerged when the Center in an affidavit stated that it withheld information requested by the high court and left a decision on the matter to the national army established by the SC bench. in the head.
The task team consists of experts from various cities. The institute said that by virtue of the NTF’s constitution and its principles and values, the central government respectfully respects its response to the issues raised in the SC directive on the manufacture, acquisition, purchase, distribution, supply, supply of oxygen systems, its delivery by its hospitals and management of Covid patients -19.
The bench in its April 30 and May 6 mandate asked the institution a number of questions – from vaccine production to the provision of essential medicines. The government views this as a legal interference in policy decisions made in consultation between intergovernmental and federal and local experts.
Seeking superior intelligence and a policy framework to address this situation, the institute said, “In times of unprecedented crisis, high government performance requires understanding to make policy more beneficial. In view of the unprecedented and special circumstances in which the vaccination program was developed under administrative policy, the wisdom of the executive council should be relied upon. ”
The institute described its immunization policy, saying, “In terms of medical advice and international policy, it is internationally stable that a group over the age of 45 is most at risk for Covid-19. By the same token, it has been determined that vaccination of this group (over 45 years) is very important. Since national immunizations do not occur in the same area due to epidemics, limited availability of vaccine doses and risk as a major consideration, the policy is based on the above, equitable, non-discriminatory and based on sound discrimination between age groups. “
He said that this policy is in line with the mandate of Article 14 and Article 21 of the Constitution and was made after much discussion and consultation with experts, national governments and manufacturers of vaccines that do not need to be interrupted by SC as they are still facing an epidemic of this magnitude. large community.
Although the institute received a proposal to accept SC’s role in evaluating the officer’s work, it was a strong opinion that the judiciary did not have the necessary expertise or means to deal with, or at the strategic level, the challenges posed by the epidemic, which are said to be driven by modified Covid models.