Gangtok: The High Court of Sikkim has accused the Government of Sikkim of giving incorrect explanations and replies on COVID management in the State. During the hearing of August 14, Sikkim HC observed, “while analysing statements comparing with the requirements of Standard Operating Procedures, this court found that the Officer who filed the affidavit has not furnished with correct information”.
The High Court further added, “We find that despite bulky explanations filed time to time nothing concrete has been brought indicating the root facilities available on the Covid Care Centres. How far such explanation of irresponsible Officer who is holding the post of Director (Admin), Department of Health Care and Human Services, Government of Sikkim can be accepted and how far the Additional Advocate General can justify the incorrect factual aspect is beyond the reach of understanding of the Court”.
The High Court of Sikkim highlighted examples of incorrect information, the Court quoted, “In paragraph 11 of the affidavit dated July 27, 2021, it is said in all across the State there are 23 COVID Care Centres (CCC) established which is marked as Annexure R-3. The Human Resources (HR) in these facilities have been deployed in line with requirement as laid down in the SOP. Further said that each CCC has a Medical Officer (MO) or a Multi Purpose Health Worker (MPHW) as the Nodal Officer as detailed in the list of CCCs. Those Nodal Officers are supported by ASHA/Anganwadi workers and the up keep facilities are looked after by the Gram Panchayat of the area in the rural areas and Urban Local Bodies in urban areas. When we compared the said statement from Annexure R-3 at page no 886, the details of North District, Mangan has been shown wherein it not specified that who is the Nodal Officer. It is merely said that one Medical Officer and one paramedical staff has been deployed being Human Resources in each CCC apparently this is not requirement as specified in the SOP and said by the Officer in the affidavit that too without specifying about Anganwadi/ASHA workers”.
Also read | Sikkim governor, CM celebrate Independence Day with friendly badminton game
The High Court further highlighted how dedicated ambulance is not there for CCCs. The High Court quoted, “The list of equipment as filed for North District Annexure I-A at page no 888, out of total 18 requirements specified in the SOP, seven is not fulfilled and dedicated ambulance is also not there for the CCCs. Additional Advocate General made an attempt to satisfy this Court that these are the available equipment to which a list has been furnished”.
On being asked by the Court why in the matter of list of equipment Annexure I-A has been mentioned that Centre (for one month). Additional Advocate General contented it to be ‘a clerical mistake’. The High Court further quoted, “If we see the contents of the Affidavit in paragraph 11 furnished by the Officer and on comparison with the SOP it reflects that the requirements have not been complied with”.
The High Court further stated, “This Court is cautious that it is a matter regarding Health Care facilities to the citizens of the state of Sikkim, in particular, to combat the surge of COVID 19 pandemic, in our view such responses are not acceptable. Having experienced on so many dates we deem it appropriate to observe that the learned Additional Advocate General must appear in this case and apprise the Court regarding the correct position of the facts showing the compliance of the SOP of the Central Government which is atleast a minimum compliance by the State authorities and also on other issues”.
The High Court highlighted how the situation since last three months regarding COVID 19 cases has been fluctuating. “Initially it ranges higher, later on it has come down, now again it is increasing gradually and the present percentage of COVID cases reaches between 10 to 12 in the State. The officers who are assigned the duties of COVID 19 management issues are not in a position to identify the probable reasons of increase of cases thereon the effective control ought to be made, showing the indicator of check points in increase of the cases in the State. The bulky explanations filed are not satisfactory or even do not identify the reason of increase”.
The High Court did not hesitate to say that the State government is duty bound to observe the provisions as contained in the Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP) corresponding to Article 21 of the Constitution of India in the matter of health and security of the citizens of the State. “Therefore, with hope and trust that within two weeks the Advocate General would come forward with the correct and genuine issue/replies and explanations of the previous orders and make his submission in the next date”. The next hearing is due on September 1.