We, as humans, have been dominating the planet from time immemorial, but a teensy-weensy virus showed us our place. The past few years have been tremendously challenging for the human race. As per the WHO’s estimates, nearly 15 million people have succumbed to the novel Corona virus in the past two years, including 4.7 million in India.
But we, as a sophisticated piece of life, haven’t seen fit to learn a lesson; we are too busy trying to figure out the economics of life. Even the impact of the novel Corona virus and its vaccination have been reduced by economics and debates.
In line with our “cost and benefit attitudes,” the “Covid-sponsored” vaccine-enabled “way of life” has been subjected to judicial scrutiny by way of public interest litigation in the case of Jacob Puliyel vs. Union of India.
The Supreme Court was entrusted with the judicial review of the vaccination drive, restrictions, and mandatory protocols imposed by the government with the view to curtail the COVID-19 virus. Hailing the matter as being of public interest, the writ was filed by Dr. JACOB PULIYEL.
The petitioner, who happened to be a former member of the National Technical Advisory Group on Immunization (NTAGI), highlighted some key issues regarding:
- Adverse consequences of emergency approval of vaccines in India.
- The need for transparency in publishing vaccine-specific clinical trial data, the need for clinical data disclosure.
- Lack of transparency in the approval process, and
- Vaccine mandates in the absence of informed consent, amounting to constitutional violations.
The petitioner further stated in the Writ Petition that coercive vaccination would result in interfering with the principle of informed self-determination of individuals, protected by Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
Preliminary Issues
Before going into the legal sanctity of the vaccination mechanism, the petition was challenged by the government on two technical grounds:
- Maintainability of the Petition
Firstly, the learned Solicitor General questioned the Writ Petition’s viability, stating that any observation made by this Court against vaccination would result in a potential threat of vaccine hesitancy, and would harm the public interest.
- Judicial review of executive decisions based on expert opinion
Secondly, the learned SGI mentioned that the Court should yield to executive decision and action in the matter of the administration of drugs and vaccines. He placed reliance on the dicta of three cases.
- Academy of Nutrition Improvement v. Union of India;
- Sundarrajan v. Union of India and
- Shri Sitaram Sugar Company Ltd. v. Union of India
Further, the learned Solicitor General relied upon the judgments of the Supreme Court of the United States in Henning Jacobson v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts, and Zucht v. King.
Question of law:
The Apex Court identified three prominent issues for the purpose of determination in this matter.
- First, if the vaccine mandate violates Article 21 of the India’s Constitution?
- Secondly, if Non-disclosure of segregated clinical trial data in the public domain amounts to uninformed consent,
- Thirdly, if denial of public utility services on the basis of vaccination status amounts to a violation of constitutional rights,
Decision of the Bench
In this landmark ruling on the COVID-19 vaccination drive, the bench of Justice L. Nageswara Rao and Justice BR Gavai has held that bodily integrity is protected under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and no individual can be forced to be vaccinated.
The Court, however, cautioned that judgment is not to be construed as impeding, in any manner, the lawful exercise of power by the executive to take suitable measures for the prevention of infection and transmission of the virus in the public interest.
The measure may also take the form of restrictions on unvaccinated people in the future if the situation so warrants. However, liberty can be curtailed subject to constitutional scrutiny after meeting the threefold requirement against intrusion into the rights of individuals.
Also read: 2018, Joseph Shine vs. Union of India: The assault over institution of marriage
Is the Vaccination Drive arbitrary?
On the question of the vaccination drive being arbitrary, the apex court looked into the expert’s opinion. The court held that the substantial material reflects the near-unanimous views of experts on the benefits of vaccination in addressing severe disease from infection, reduction in oxygen requirement, and hospital and ICU admissions.
The Court was 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, as it was capable of curtailing the mortality and spread of the virus.
On personal autonomy and public health
On the question of personal autonomy, the court ruled that bodily integrity is protected under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and no individual can be forced to be vaccinated.
Furthermore, personal autonomy of an individual was held to include the right of an individual to determine how they should live their own lives, which consequently encompassed the right to refuse any medical treatment in the sphere of individual health.
Subsequently, the court ruled that people who do not want to be vaccinated due to personal beliefs or preferences can do so without anyone physically compelling them to.
On the contrary, the court observed that if there is a likelihood of such individuals spreading the infection to other people, contributing to the mutation of the virus, or burdening the public health infrastructure, thereby affecting communitarian health at large, their liberty can be curtailed.
The court pointed out that the protection of the populace is undoubtedly the legitimate state goal in imposing these restrictions and are of paramount significance in this collective battle against the pandemic. Therefore, Governments can regulate such public health concerns by imposing certain limitations on individual rights that are reasonable and proportionate to the object sought to be fulfilled.
Also read: Ismail Farooqui vs Union of India – When Supreme Court blew the lid off Indian secularists
On the non-disclosure of segregated clinical trial data in the public domain
Furthermore, the court held that a challenge to the procedures used by reputable institutions when granting regulatory approval to vaccines on the ground of lack of transparency could not be entertained.
However, subject to the protection of the privacy of individual subjects and to the extent permissible by the 2019 Rules, the relevant data that were required to be published under the statutory regime and the WHO Statement on Clinical Trials shall be made available to the public without undue delay.
Therefore, the Supreme Court accepted the prayer of Dr. Puliyel that mandatory administration of vaccines cannot be enforced as it is against the citizens’ right to autonomy and the right to self-determine as to what may be injected into their bodies.
The Apex Court’s decision can thus be said to be inspired by the words of American polymath Benjamin Franklin, who said, “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”
Support TFI:
Support us to strengthen the ‘Right’ ideology of cultural nationalism by purchasing the best quality garments from TFI-STORE.COM
