Strengthening the Right to Health: SC on Vaccine Injury Compensation
Context: The Supreme Court recently directed the Union government to create a āno-faultā compensation policy for individuals who suffered serious adverse effects or deaths following Covid-19 vaccination. The Court emphasised that families of victims should not be compelled to prove negligence in courts and that the State must provide a structured compensation mechanism as part of its public health responsibility.
Introduction: India implemented one of the largest Covid-19 vaccination drives in the world, administering billions of doses of Covishield and Covaxin. Although vaccines were largely safe and effective, a few individuals reportedly suffered rare adverse events such as blood clotting disorders. The issue reached the Supreme Court through petitions filed by affected families seeking compensation and accountability.
Background of the Case: The Supreme Court heard petitions from families who lost children or spouses aged 18ā40 years after receiving Covid-19 vaccines in 2021. Petitioners argued that certain rare adverse effects occurred after vaccination, leading to deaths or severe complications.
Petitionersā Concerns: Petitioners claimed that the government failed to ensure proper informed consent and did not sufficiently communicate potential vaccine risks. They also argued that vaccination, though officially voluntary, became effectively mandatory due to administrative restrictions on unvaccinated individuals, raising concerns about infringement of fundamental rights.
Governmentās Defence: The Union government maintained that the vaccines underwent rigorous regulatory approvals and that India has a robust Adverse Events Following Immunisation (AEFI) monitoring system. It stated that vaccine-related deaths were extremely rare, citing a reporting rate of 0.001 per one lakh doses for certain clotting disorders. The government also suggested that families could seek compensation through civil or consumer courts by proving negligence.
Supreme Courtās Observations: The Court rejected the idea that families should pursue individual litigation. It noted that proving negligence in vaccine injury cases requires complex scientific evidence, which places an unreasonable burden on affected families. The Court also warned that multiple individual lawsuits could lead to inconsistent outcomes and unequal access to justice, violating Article 14 of the Constitution.
Principle of No-Fault Liability: The Court invoked the concept of no-fault liability, which allows victims to receive compensation without proving negligence or wrongdoing. The Court observed that such mechanisms already exist in Indian law, particularly in motor vehicle accident compensation, and are used in vaccine injury compensation programmes in countries like Australia, the United Kingdom, and Japan.
Constitutional Basis under Article 21: The judgment relied on Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to life and the right to health. The Court emphasised that the State cannot remain a passive observer to human suffering and must act as a guardian of welfare and dignity. Since the Covid-19 vaccination programme was a State-led public health initiative, the government bears responsibility for supporting those who suffered rare but serious adverse outcomes.
Reference to Earlier Supreme Court Judgment: The Court clarified that it was not questioning the scientific validity of Covid-19 vaccines. It referred to the 2022 judgment in Jacob Puliyel vs Union of India, which upheld the legality of the vaccine approval process and confirmed that vaccination cannot be forcibly imposed due to bodily integrity under Article 21.
Role of AEFI Monitoring System: The Court observed that India already has an established mechanism to track vaccine-related complications through AEFI committees at district, state and national levels. Therefore, it declined the demand to create a separate expert medical board for investigating vaccine-related deaths.
Directive to Frame Compensation Policy: The Supreme Court directed the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare to formulate and publish a structured no-fault compensation framework for individuals affected by serious adverse events following Covid-19 vaccination. The Court clarified that such compensation should not be treated as an admission of liability by the Union government.
Earlier Judicial Intervention on Covid-19 Compensation: The Court referred to its earlier decision in Gaurav Kumar Bansal vs Union of India (2021), where it directed the National Disaster Management Authority (NDMA) to provide ex gratia financial assistance to families of Covid-19 victims.
NDMA Ex Gratia Compensation Guidelines: Following the Courtās direction, NDMA issued guidelines in September 2021 providing ā¹50,000 ex gratia compensation for each Covid-19 death. The amount was to be paid by states through the State Disaster Response Fund (SDRF). To ensure fairness, deaths occurring within 30 days of a positive Covid-19 test were treated as Covid deaths and district-level grievance redressal committees were created to resolve disputes.
Conclusion: The Supreme Courtās direction to create a no-fault compensation policy reflects the constitutional commitment to public health, welfare, and social justice. By recognising the Stateās responsibility toward individuals affected by rare vaccine-related injuries, the judgment strengthens Article 21 protections and the principle of welfare governance, while maintaining public trust in large-scale vaccination programmes.
Source : Indian Express