Author: Mehak Verma, Indian Institute of Management Rohtak
• To the Point
Dr. Jacob Puliyel, a former member of the National Technical Advisory Group on Immunization (NTAGI), filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) asking for more transparency in India’s vaccine approval process. He opposed mandatory vaccination and requested the release of detailed clinical trial data, approval records, and reports of vaccine side effects.
The Supreme Court in this case held that no one can be forced to take a COVID-19 vaccine. The Court supported the government’s vaccination program but ruled that making vaccines a condition to access services violates the right to personal freedom under Article 21 of the Constitution. It also ordered the government to make vaccine trial data for children public and ensure clear reporting of side effects, stressing the importance of informed consent.
• Use of Legal Jargon
Article 21 of the Constitution of India upholds the right to life and personal liberty, reinforcing bodily autonomy and informed consent in health decisions. It ensures individuals cannot be forced into medical treatment, including vaccinations, without their voluntary approval.
Public Interest Litigation (PIL) serves as a legal tool for protecting public welfare and fundamental rights. Through PILs, individuals can challenge government policies or actions that may infringe on constitutional safeguards, ensuring judicial oversight against arbitrary or unreasonable decisions.
Bodily Autonomy: A facade of privacy; the right to make decisions about one’s own body.
AEFI (Adverse Events Following Immunization): Medical incidents that occur after vaccination, vital for evaluating vaccine safety.
Judicial Review: The Power of the court to assess the reasonableness and constitutionality of executive policies.
• The Proof
The Supreme Court accepted the petitioner’s concern that coercive vaccine mandates by states violated constitutional rights.
The Court clarified that while vaccination is strongly recommended, it cannot be compulsorily imposed.
The Union Government’s own affidavit stated that COVID-19 vaccination is voluntary.
The Court applied the Puttaswamy test, finding that restrictions such as denying services or jobs to unvaccinated persons were not proportionate.
The Court directed the Union of India to:
Publicize AEFI data through accessible platforms.
Release pediatric vaccine trial results.
Ensure informed consent protocols are respected.
• Abstract
In Jacob Puliyel v. Union of India, the Supreme Court addressed a crucial issue: whether India’s COVID-19 vaccine policies were compatible with constitutional protections of personal liberty. Dr. Jacob Puliyel, a former NTAGI member, filed a PIL demanding transparency in clinical trial data, better reporting of AEFIs, and a halt to coercive vaccine mandates. The Court upheld the scientific basis of India’s vaccine program but ruled that bodily integrity and informed consent are constitutionally guaranteed under Article 21. It rejected complete vaccine mandates that bar unvaccinated individuals from accessing public services, stating that such mandates must meet constitutional standards of legality, necessity, and proportionality. The judgment highlights the role of the courts in keeping a check on public health policies. It is an important decision that balances personal rights with the need to protect public health.
• Case Laws
Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC 1
Established the “three-fold test” for evaluating restrictions on fundamental rights: legality, legitimate state aim, and proportionality.
Common Cause v. Union of India, (2018) 5 SCC 1
Recognized the individual’s right to refuse medical treatment as part of the right to live with dignity.
X v. Hospital Z, (1998) 8 SCC 296
Right to privacy in medical information is protected under Article 21 but is subject to reasonable restrictions for public interest.
• Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s judgment in this case is a landmark decision reinforcing the primacy of individual rights even during public health crises. While the state has a duty to protect public health, it cannot do so by trampling upon the constitutional rights of bodily autonomy, privacy, and informed consent. The ruling of this case held that vaccine mandates must meet the tests of legality, necessity, and proportionality to be valid under Article 21. It emphasized that while public health measures are critical, they cannot violate individual autonomy. The judgment reaffirmed the Court’s role in preventing executive overreach in health policies, ensuring that state actions balance public interest with fundamental rights.
• FAQS
Q1: Did the Supreme Court oppose with vaccination for Covid in India?
A: No. The Court upheld vaccination as a critical public health measure but ruled it must be voluntary.
Q2: Can the government force someone to take a vaccine?
A: No. The Court held that forceful vaccination violates Article 21, which protects bodily autonomy.
Q3: Are vaccine mandates legal in India?
A: Only if they are based on law, serve a legitimate public health goal, and are proportionate. Blanket mandates (e.g., barring unvaccinated people from services) are unconstitutional.
Q4: What was the petitioner’s main concern?
A: Lack of transparency in vaccine trial data, poor AEFI reporting, and coercive mandates violating the right to informed consent.
Q5: What directions did the Court give the government?
A: Make pediatric trial data public, enhance AEFI reporting mechanisms, and ensure informed consent protocols are followed.
