Govt handling of Covid-19 ”gross mismanagement”, bordering on ”criminal”: Prashant Bhushan

Aug 11, 2020

New Delhi: Eminent human rights lawyer Prashant Bhushan has said the government’s handling of the Covid-19 pandemic is “gross mismanagement at many levels, bordering on the ”criminal”.

”It’s so serious and so negligent it borders on the criminal”, Prashant Bhushan said in his first interview where he explains why he has moved a PIL in the Supreme Court accusing the government of “gross mismanagement of the Covid-19 pandemic in India” and asking the Court to use its power under Article 32 and appoint an independent inquiry commission headed by a retired judge of the Court.

Talking to Karan Thapar for the Wire,  he said, despite receiving WHO alerts in early January the government “failed to nip the problem in the bud by conducting effective screening and surveillance of international passengers coming into India as well as carrying out a public awareness campaign”.

When pointed out that on the 14th of April the Prime Minister had said: “Long before we had even one single case of Corona, India had started screening travellers coming from Corona effected countries at airports” Mr. Bhushan said “he is lying”. But then Mr. Bhushan corrected himself and said the Prime Minister “may be right in a technical sense”.

Moreover, Bhushan said there was no universal screening till sometime in March. An RTI reply that he has received has established that between 15th January and 18th March only 19% of incoming passengers were screened at airports. This is his basis for saying the PM is only correct in a technical sense.

Bhushan questioned why was Namaste Trump permitted on the 24th of February when 20 days earlier on the 4th the National Disaster Management Authority had issued guidelines to avoid mass gatherings, promote masks and the use of hand sanitizers. In ignoring these guidelines and permitting Namaste Trump, with over 1 lakh people, to go ahead the government was guilty of gross mismanagement and negligence, he said.

A second reason Bhushan gave for accusing the government of gross mismanagement of Covid-19 is the fact the lockdown was announced on 24th March “without due consultation with experts or state governments”. Mr. Bhushan said that even the National Task Force, appointed by the government on the 18th, was not consulted.

Speaking about the states, the lawyer said the Cabinet Secretary on the 22nd/23rd had consulted Chief Secretaries and they had agreed on a shut down in 75/80 districts/cities identified as hotspots. The Prime Minister unilaterally changed this 24 hours later into a nationwide lockdown, for which there was no consultation or agreement between the central government and the state governments.

The thirdly, he said there was “inexplicable delay in scaling up the procurement of PPEs”. Dismissing the government’s claim that it has speedily and substantially ramped up the production of PPEs to the point where India is now reported to be making six lakh kits a day,  Bhushan asked how does the government explain the many stories of doctors and other healthcare staff complaining about lack of PPEs? He also quoted PPE manufacturers and their association who have said the government did not place orders till the 21st of March. In other words, critical time was wasted by the government before decisions to order PPEs from domestic manufacturers were taken and communicated.

The fourth reason he gave for accusing the government of gross mismanagement is the impact of the lockdown on jobs, livelihoods and the economy. He said the harshest lockdown in the world was declared with just four hour’s notice without “any advance planning or social security measures”. This, he added, badly affected the right to life of the affected Indian people and this is a right guaranteed by Article 21 of the constitution.

Mr. Bhushan said he was asking the Supreme Court to appoint an inquiry to bring out the proper facts and establish what the government did as well as what it did not do, when it did it, and how effectively it was done and what was the impact or consequence of that action. In other words, as he put it, the inquiry commission would produce a document that would be like a white paper establishing the facts

–India News Stream