State BJP President CR Paatil on Thursday urged the Gujarat High Court to dismiss a public interest litigation (PIL) seeking a probe into alleged illegal distribution of Remdesivir during the second wave of the covid-19 pandemic, citing that he fears the pendency of the PIL will be “misused” in the coming days and will be used as a “bugle” by the Opposition Congress.
Former leader of Opposition in the Gujarat Assembly Paresh Dhanani had filed the PIL, through advocate Anand Yagnik, contending “illegal and unauthorised distribution of Remdesivir injection” from Surat BJP office, during the peak of second wave.
Paatil and MLA Harsh Sanghavi, now Minister of State for Home, had courted controversy in April 2021 when amid the second wave of Covid-19 and a dire shortage of the antiviral drug Remdesivir, Paatil had announced that the BJP would give 5,000 Remdesivir injections free of cost to needy patients from Surat BJP office, with 500-1,000 injections planned to be distributed daily.
In what appeared to be an indication towards the upcoming Gujarat polls, senior advocate Nirupam Nanavaty, representing Paatil, said, “Pendency of the PIL is being misused by the petitioner (Congress’ Dhanani) who is an arch political rival of Assembly 3 and 4 (BJP’s Paatil and Sanghavi). The PIL is as such not maintainable as per rules of the (Gujarat) High Court and in the coming days it will be used as a bugle.” Reasoning as to why the PIL is non-maintainable, Nanavaty added the petition entirely relies on “newspaper reports, unverified newspaper and media reports.”
Dhanani in his PIL had sought that an expert committee is constituted of “highly distinguished and neutral persons” to inquire into the incident and place a report before the court in the context of the Pharmacy Act 1984, Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, Disaster Management Act, 2005 and Epidemic Diseases Act of 1987, and that action must be taken based on the report.
Dhanani also sought that the court direct state authorities including Surat collector, Surat city police commissioner and Food and Drug Control Administration to ensure that such incident in question of acquiring, stocking and distribution of Remdesivir injections “from the office of a political party or any other place which does not have registration and license…does not happen in future.”
Pursuant to court orders, FDCA had conducted an inquiry, giving a clean chit to BJP and its workers who were involved in the Remdesivir distribution, and concluding that prima facie from preliminary investigation, “there does not appear to be any violation of Drugs and Cosmetics Act 1960 or any other provisions under any other law.
On Thursday, advocate general Kamal Trivedi, representing the state government reiterated the FDCA stance before the division bench of Chief Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice AJ Shastri.
CJ Kumar too opined that the incident did not appear to be illegal, remarking during the hearing that Remdesivir manufacturers had been instructed to supply 60 per cent of its production to the government and remaining 40 per cent be allocated for private distributors.
AG Trivedi orally informed the court, “Our inquiry reveals it (distribution of the injection from Surat BJP office) was out of that 40% (of private quota) and the donors made the payment and the distribution took place in the presence of the distributors . Our conclusion is, these people (Paatil and Sanghavi) have never acquired, never distributed. They were facilitating, that’s all. There’s no blackmarketing, payment is on checks.”
Nanavaty added that Paatil and Sanghavi “made their effort to see to it that Remdesivir injections are acquired and disbursed to needy persons with the assistance of doctors.” Upon Nanavaty’s insistence for an early listing date for the matter, the court inquired about what the urgency for listing is, given that there are no adverse court orders against Paatil and Sanghavi.
To this, Nanavaty responded, “Urgency is, this is being politically misused. I’m worried about the coming days. This is a political interest litigation.”
The bench, however, refused to relent and instructed Nanavaty to “file necessary application” for fixing the early date of hearing of the petition.
,