At a time when India is facing huge challenges to its pluralistic democracy due to the erosion of democratic institutions and processes, the change in the Covid vaccine policy announced by the Modi government on Monday June 7, demonstrates that the executive, however powerful and autocratic it is, can be tamed, if the other players assert themselves. The change of mind of the Modi government happened because of the criticism and questioning by the judiciary (Supreme Court), the opposition ruled state governments, media and the civil society.  

On 7th June, Prime Minister Narendra Modi in his address to the nation announced that from June 21, all citizens above the age of 18 year will get free vaccines, and assured that vaccine supply would be increased significantly in the country in the coming days. 
According to the new policy, private hospitals will be able to procure 25% of the total vaccine produced in India and they are allowed to charge only Rs. 150 as service charges, besides the actual price of the vaccine. The Prime Minister in his address justified the previous vaccine policy of leaving the responsibility of acquiring vaccines for the age group between 18 and 45 to the states, saying that it was done in response to the demand by the states, though many states denied the claim of the prime minister.  

Although the opposition ruled states welcomed the change in the policy of the central government, they indicated that the central government was forced to act because of the pressure from the Supreme Court and the constant demand from them. “We had announced to vaccinate our people for free earlier only. Centre woke up after being pulled up by the Supreme Court. Putting blame on states is unfair as they had already asked Centre for free vaccination”, said Chhattisgarh CM Bhupesh Baghel. “I thank PM Narendra Modi Ji for acceding to our request for central procurement and distribution of vaccines for all age groups. I had written twice to the PM on this issue and to Health Minister Dr Harsh Vardhan Ji”, tweeted Punjab CM Captain Amarinder Singh.

An analysis of the changes in the vaccine policy of the central government can bring to light that the assertion by the other pillars of democracy in a way forced the central government to act. The three pillars of democracy are Legislature, Executive and Judiciary. Media is the fourth pillar and civil society can be considered as the fifth pillar. The constitution of India envisages balance of power among the three pillars: Legislature, Executive and Judiciary. Till the appointment of the new Chief Justice of the Supreme Court the mechanism of balance of power did not function adequately and the Covid 19 policies of the Central government were not seriously challenged. 

When the ruling party has a brute majority in the parliament, the executive can easily become autocratic and dictatorial, and the parliament can become a mere rubber stamp. This is what happened in India after the BJP came to power a second time with an enhanced majority in the Lok Sabha and majority in the Rajya Sabha with the support of friendly opposition parties. Under the pretext of Covid 19 the parliament is not convened even using online platforms and the parliamentary committees are not allowed to function. Hence Covid related issues and policies are not under the scrutiny of the parliament. Large chunk of the media became the propaganda machinery of the BJP government and civil society represented by the NGOs and social activists is harassed and threatened by making use of the draconian laws. Till the appointment of the new Chief Justice, the Supreme Court also appeared to be in agreement with the executive. The disunited and demoralized opposition was not found dynamic in challenging the Covid 19 related policies of the central government. The central government could do whatever it wanted without any serious questioning by the other pillars. 

The appointment of Justice N V Ramana as the Chief Justice of India from April 24 was a turning point. The Supreme Court questioned and even severely criticised the central government for its policy of the vaccine and oxygen supply. The Supreme Court, which so far appeared to be pliable, began to assert itself and bluntly told the central and the state governments that filing cases under sedition law against the people who complain about the shortage of medical oxygen and hospital beds is unconstitutional. The thumping victory of opposition parties in West Bengal, Tamil Nadu and Kerala in the recently concluded assembly elections contributed to some extent to the mellowing down of the pride and arrogance of the BJP. There appeared some kind of unity among the opposition ruled states regarding the Covid 19 related policies of the Central Government. 

This previous policy of the central government was confusing and complicated. The state governments were going from pillar to post for acquiring vaccines. There was competition among the states to acquire vaccines. Conflict between the centre and states became heightened on the issue of supplying vaccines. Although a dozen state governments floated global tenders for purchasing vaccines from foreign companies, most of the companies refused to deal with the state governments. Meanwhile the shortage of vaccines became acute in many states. Delhi and Maharashtra closed several vaccine centres catering to the age group between 18 and 45. 

At this juncture a three member bench of the Supreme Court took up suo motu the issue of Covid 19 vaccination and asked many tough questions to the central government. It flagged “various flaws” in the vaccination programme, criticizing aspects like differential pricing, shortage of doses, and lack of access in rural areas, and called the vaccine policy prima facie  “arbitrary” and “irrational”. The court asked why states were required to pay more for the same vaccines than what the centre had to pay. It sought a roadmap of the availability of vaccines till December 31, along with the details of the Rs. 35,000 core set aside in the Union budget to buy vaccines. The bench also wanted a comparison of vaccines’ prices in India and abroad. It also asked for document and file notings related to the Centre’s policy.

Meanwhile the media also became active in raising the demand for the centre acquiring vaccines and supplying them to the states free of cost. Many newspapers wrote editorials exposing the flaws in the vaccine policy of the government. TV channels organized interviews with vaccine experts, economists and academicians in which the demand for the central government making available free vaccines to the states for all age groups was reiterated. Journalists and social activists wrote articles in newspapers and news magazines criticizing the vaccine policy of the government. Social media was also used profusely for putting pressure on the government to change its vaccine policy. 

The opposition ruled state governments also played a key role in putting pressure on the central government. Kerala chief minister Pinaray Vijayan wrote an open letter to 11 opposition ruled states, requesting them to demand free vaccines from the central government. Naveen Patnaik of Odisha also wrote a letter to all chief ministers, requesting them to make the same demand on the centre.  Thus there was a near unanimity among the non-BJP ruled states on the centre taking up the responsibility of acquiring vaccines and distributing them to the states equitably based on a transparent policy. The BJP ruled states also expressed their inability to purchase vaccines from the foreign companies.

The Modi government, which is not ready to accept its mistakes and reluctant to listen to the opposition parties, was forced to change the vaccine policy because of some democratic institutions playing an active role. The judiciary (Supreme Court) played the most crucial role along with the opposition ruled state chief ministers, the media and the civil society. 

Democracy cannot be limited to periodic elections; making the elected government accountable to the people is the heart of democracy. In the absence of a strong and dynamic opposition the Judiciary and the civil society have to play a crucial role in making the governments accountable. It is a matter of great satisfaction that the judiciary under the leadership of the present Chief Justice of the Supreme Court has started playing its role as the guardian of the Constitution and the rights of the people. In this context it is worth mentioning about a letter written by a fifth grade student from Kerala to the Chief Justice of India NV Ramana. Lidwina Joseph, a student of Kendriya Vidyalaya in Thrissur, sent a hand- written letter to CJI, saying that she was “happy and proud” of the Supreme Court’s orders regarding oxygen supply in the country, especially in Delhi. 

The initiatives taken by some opposition chief ministers can lead to a broad understanding among the opposition parties to take on the BJP government and check its divisive and anti-people policies. On 8th June, Tamil Nadu chief minister MK Stalin wrote to 12 chief ministers, seeking their support in demanding a moratorium on loans by Small and Medium Enterprises. In his letter he wrote that the centre reversed the country’s vaccine policy “due to our collective efforts”. “We need to show our collective strength at this hour of great need” he added. As the main opposition party Congress refuses to become relevant by resolving its leadership crisis and revamping the party structure, other opposition parties are taking the lead to save democracy in India.