Isawanda Laloo, Deputy Commissioner, East Khasi Hills District, Shillong stated, in accordance with the Meghalaya High Court order dated June 26, 2021, âAll shops / establishments / local taxis / auto-rickshaws / maxi taxis and buses should display in a prominent place, a sign clearly indicating âVaccinatedâ, in the event that all employees and staff of the store / establishment concerned are vaccinated. Similar signs should be displayed in the case of local taxis, auto-rickshaws / maxi taxis and buses where the relevant driver or driver or assistant (s) are vaccinated.
The order stated that “All shops / establishments / taxis / automatic rickshaws, maxi taxis and buses should display in a conspicuous place in a conspicuous place, a sign clearly indicating ‘Not vaccinated’, in case all employees and the personnel of the company concerned store / establishment are not vaccinated. Similar signs should be displayed in the case of local taxis, auto-rickshaws / maxi taxis and buses where the driver or driver or assistant (s) concerned are not vaccinated. ”
The ordinance stipulated that it was mandatory that all employees and staff of shops / establishments and drivers, chauffeurs and helpers of local taxis, auto-rickshaws, maxi taxis and buses that choose not to ride. to be vaccinated should be tested once every ten days in order to exercise social responsibility and contribute to the safety of society by ensuring this safety measure. For stores located in fixed establishments, although the use of design / graphics and details of vaccinated employees is permitted in these panels, the status of vaccinated or unvaccinated should be clear and distinct.
For hawkers and street vendors, ID or badge instead of a sign is required, for which this office will issue separate instructions to Shillong City Council, city sales committees, according to l ‘order.
A High Court division bench, led by Chief Justice Biswanath Somadder, recently said that forcibly vaccination infringes on the fundamental right as such, especially when it affects the right to a livelihood that allow a person to live.
The court observed: âArticle 21 includes in its bosom the right to health, as a fundamental right. By this same analogy, the right to health care, which includes vaccination, is a fundamental right. However, vaccination by force or made compulsory by the adoption of coercive methods vitiates the very basic goal of well-being which is attached to it.
The court said that there is an obvious lack of legitimacy in prohibiting the freedom to practice a profession, trade or business among a certain category or class of citizens who otherwise have the right to do so, which makes ill-conceived, arbitrary notification / order and / or disguised exercise of power. A state notification / order certainly cannot embargo and / or interfere with an individual’s fundamental right to life by depriving them of their right to subsistence, except in accordance with the procedure established by law. Even this procedure must be reasonable, fair and equitable.