Centre informs SC: no legal obligation to get COVID-19 vaccination.


The Centre on Tuesday clarified to the Supreme Court. There was no legal compulsion to get a vaccination for COVID-19.

The Centre clarified that there was no legal compulsion to get a vaccination for COVID-19.

The Centre submitted the concept of informed consent. Inapplicable to the voluntary use of a drug such as a vaccine.

“While the Government of India strongly encourages all eligible persons to undertake vaccination in the public interest, there is no legal compulsion for the same,” the affidavit read.

The Centre’s response came to a petition filed by two parents. Whose daughters have allegedly passed away due to the side effects of the COVID vaccine.

If a person suffers physical injury or death from Adverse Events Following Immunization (AEFI), appropriate remedies in law are open to the vaccine beneficiary. Their family including approaching civil courts for claim of compensation for negligence, malfeasance 

“Such claims may be determined on a case-to-case basis in an appropriate forum,” the Centre said further submitting: “there is no material evidence to suggest how the State can be fastened with strict liability for the tragic death of the respective children of the petitioners which is the need in law to sustain a claim for compensation against the State under Article 32 of the Constitution.”

So, the union government said that the facts placed in this affidavit show how the Government of India has made Large efforts in ensuring a safe National COVID-19 Vaccination Program.

The Centre clarified that information on COVID-19 vaccination is available in the public domain. Both the vaccine manufacturer and the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare (MoHFW).

A medicine has side effects and AEFIs has been reported for every vaccine in the world.

The Centre has opposed the petition seeking compensation. To the respondents on the death of their respective children. And said that causation analysis has revealed that the death of the daughter.First petitioner was from a vaccine product-related reaction.

While in the case of the daughter of the second petitioner. There is insufficient evidence to arrive at a definitive conclusion.

The Centre’s existing mechanism for monitoring, investigation, and analysis under the National AEFI Committee. The Secretariat is adequate, effective, transparent, and guided by global practices and scientific medical experts. 

“The prayers made by the Petitioners about an independent review of AEFI cases ought not granted by this Court as the same would plant a seed of doubt in the existing regulatory and AEFI monitoring mechanism and harm the public interest. It may be noted that the Petitioners have failed to show how the existing AEFI monitoring and investigation system has proven to be inadequate in the present case,” Centre said urging the court to dismiss the plea. 

Also Read:Top FIFA WC 2022 goal scorers: Valencia, Mbappe lead race for Golden Boot


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *