The Central Government has justified himself and clarified by presenting five (5) major points that – Why the elderly, the specially-abled and immobile cannot get or immunized by ebbs at home?

The Ministry of Health and Family Welfare on Tuesday in support of themselves present an affidavit before the Bombay High Court has said that – “Near–to–door vaccination would be feasible and the best solution than the Door – to – Door vaccination.” And clarified that what will include in – Near to Door Covid vaccination Centers. It includes – Immunization tabs at non-health facilities closer to the home of people like a school building, community centers, and old–age homes.

The Ministry of Health and Family Welfare states that on May 27 of this year they will issue the Standards Operating Procedures.

The Bombay High Court on May 20 of this year to June 1 of this year granted permission to the “National Expert on Vaccine Administration Expert Group on Vaccination for Covid – 19” (NEGVAC) to check and decide whether the door–to–door vaccinations policy for citizens who would not able to visit the vaccination centers and take the vaccination. The in counters to the action of the Bombay High Court present the affidavit and stated that in pursuant to the issue of door-to-door jabs was decided in National Expert on Vaccination Administration Expert Group on Vaccination for Covid -19 (NEGVAC’S) meeting at the Niti Ayog in New Delhi.

The Center’s affidavit stated that – “All members who participated in the meeting agreed that Covid -19 jabs or vaccination could not be given at home or door- to – door due to the issues and risk cited by the National Expert Committee, which was constituted under the chairmanship of Dr. NK Arora, Executive Director Inclen Trust to examine the door – to-door vaccination policy.” The Center cited the following major five points against the ‘door–to–door’ vaccination:

1. The timely and adequate manner or system of Addressing Adverse Events Following Immunization (AEFI).
2. Adhere to the Covid Protocol of observation i.e. to keep the beneficiary under the surveillance of 30 minutes after the Covid -19 vaccination.
3. Maintaining cold chain and properly take care of the vaccine wastage.
4. There was a risk to the vaccinators and mobilize to get infective from the Covid -19 while giving vaccination from home to home.
5. There was a risk to the exposures of the Healthcare peoples and frontline health works from the community and security issues in the community.

The counter affidavit of the center stated that – around 25,309 cases have been reported by AEFI till May 28 of this year and out of which 1186 were serious cases of the Covid- 19. And around 475 deaths have been reported till May 28, 2021. In the first or earlier hearing, the divisional bench of Chief Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice GS Kulkarni had stated that “several lives could have been saved if the Center had a Door- to Door vaccination policy.” The bench was hearing the PIL of two advocates – Dhruti Kapadia and Kunal Tiwari in the case title- Dhruti Kapadia vs. Union of India who was seeking direction to the Centers and States government to take an appropriate step toward the ‘door–to–door vaccination’ for the above age group of 75, persons who are physically disabled and those who are bedridden.