A sessions court ruled that an advocate should plead his client’s grievance, not his own, after dismissing a convict’s petition regarding his “forced” vaccination against the covid-19 virus.
Special Judge Sanjashree Gharat noted that the convict had not denied the vaccine when the police escorted him to the hospital; nonetheless, his lawyer Nilesh Ojha was opposed to vaccination and had filed a plea in the High Court contesting compulsory vaccination.
“It should be remembered that the advocate representing the side must plead his or her party’s grievance. As a result, the party’s grievance should be addressed rather than the advocate’s. There is a solution wherever there is justice. There are safeguards in place to protect the rights of parties “The judge took notice.
The court refused to discuss the case laws listed in the 33-page application filed on August 24, observing that the accused had not even met with his lawyer since his August 18 conviction in a POCSO case.
On the same day, the court spoke with the accused when he was taken from prison “in order to check the substance of the application.”
“As a result, the issue arises as to who authored the present application, which runs 33 pages and was created on the same day,” the court observed.
In regards to vaccination, the inmate stated that he had seen a video and thus did not want to be vaccinated. When the court questioned if he had told the police officer who took him for vaccination, the doctors who vaccinated him, or the jail personnel, he said no.
“As a result, the application’s claim that the accused was forced to be vaccinated is without validity. In reality, it appears that he is unaware of the contents of the application at hand “The court took notice.