New Delhi, May 2
Maintaining that bodily integrity is protected under Article 21 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court on Monday ruled that no individual can be forced to be vaccinated even as it asked the government to publish key findings of the clinical trials as early as possible.
“Personal autonomy of an individual, which is a recognised facet of the protections guaranteed under Article 21, encompasses the right to refuse to undergo any medical treatment in the sphere of individual health,” a Bench led by Justice LN Rao said.
“However, in the interest of protection of communitarian health, the Government is entitled to regulate issues of public health concern by imposing certain limitations on individual rights, which are open to scrutiny by constitutional courts to assess whether such invasion into an individual’s right to personal autonomy and right to access means of livelihood meets the three-fold requirement as laid down in K.S. Puttaswamy case… .”
The Bench said courts can examine the legality of state action in such a case by ascertaining the existence of law, need defined in terms of a legitimate State objective and proportionality—which ensures a rational nexus between the objects and the means adopted to achieve them.
The top court upheld the Centre’s vaccination policy, saying it was neither unreasonable, nor arbitrary.
“On the basis of substantial material filed before this court reflecting the near-unanimous views of experts on the benefits of vaccination in addressing severe disease from the infection, reduction in oxygen requirement, hospital and ICU admissions, mortality and stopping new variants from emerging, this court is satisfied that the current vaccination policy of the Union of India is informed by relevant considerations and cannot be said to be unreasonable or manifestly arbitrary,” it noted.
The Bench also rejected the petitioner’s demand for judicial intervention on vaccination of children, saying, “The decision taken by the Union of India to vaccinate paediatric population in this country is intune with global scientific consensus and expert bodies like the WHO, the UNICEF and the CDC have also advised paediatric vaccination.”
The court said, “It would not only be beyond our jurisdiction but also hazardous if this Court were to examine the accuracy of such expert opinion, based on competing medical opinions… the scope of judicial review does not entail the Court embarking upon such misadventures.”
It said, “This court cannot sit in judgment of leading scientific analysis relating to the safety of paediatric vaccination. Experts in science may themselves differ in their opinions while taking decisions on matters related to safety and allied aspects, but that does not entitle the Court to second-guess expert opinion, on the basis of which the government has drawn up its policies.”
In line with the WHO Statement on Clinical Trials and the extant statutory regime, the Bench, however, directed the Centre to ensure that key findings and results of the relevant phases of clinical trials of vaccines already approved by the regulatory authorities for administration to children, be made public at the earliest, if not already done.”
The verdict came on a PIL filed by Jacob Puliyel seeking directions seeking disclosure of data of clinical trials of Covid vaccines and post-jab cases.
