Context:
-
The Supreme Court of India has reserved its verdict on a petition seeking compensation for deaths allegedly linked to COVID-19 vaccination through Adverse Events Following Immunization (AEFI).
-
The case raises complex questions around public health policy, data transparency, state liability, and scientific causation.
Key Highlights:
Nature of the Petition
-
Filed by Rachna Gangu and Venugopalan Govindan, who claim their daughters died due to adverse effects of COVID-19 vaccines.
-
Petitioners argue that:
-
Vaccination, though termed “voluntary”, was effectively mandatory due to restrictions.
-
Information on potential after-effects was allegedly suppressed.
-
-
Relief sought:
-
Compensation for AEFI-linked deaths.
-
Recognition of a causal link between vaccination and fatalities.
-
AEFI Data & Claims
-
Petitioners cited data indicating 1,100+ deaths reported as AEFI-linked in India.
-
An intervenor supported the plea, calling for:
-
An independent investigation mechanism into serious AEFI cases.
-
-
The Court, however:
-
Questioned the source and reliability of data linking deaths to vaccination.
-
Criticised reliance on foreign datasets over Indian surveillance systems.
-
Government’s Stand
-
The Union government argued that:
-
AEFI does not imply causation, only temporal association.
-
The State cannot be held liable for compensation for vaccination-related deaths.
-
-
The Centre also challenged a Kerala High Court order directing it to:
-
Frame a policy for identification and compensation of AEFI-linked deaths.
-
Scientific & Legal Complexity
-
AEFI definition:
-
Any untoward medical event following immunisation, not necessarily causally linked.
-
-
Difficulty lies in:
-
Establishing direct causation in large-scale vaccination programmes.
-
Balancing public confidence in vaccines with accountability and transparency.
-
Constitutional & Governance Issues
-
Case touches upon:
-
Article 21: Right to life and health.
-
State obligation during public health emergencies.
-
-
Raises questions on:
-
Informed consent
-
Transparency in health data
-
Limits of government liability in emergency interventions
-
Broader Implications
-
A ruling favouring compensation could:
-
Set a precedent for vaccine injury compensation in India.
-
Impact future mass immunisation drives.
-
-
A restrictive ruling may:
-
Protect public health programmes
-
But intensify demands for robust AEFI surveillance and communication.
-
Key Concepts Involved:
-
Adverse Events Following Immunization (AEFI): Medical events occurring after vaccination, not always causally related.
-
Vaccine Liability: Legal responsibility for adverse outcomes from vaccination.
-
Public Health Emergency: Extraordinary situation justifying exceptional state action.
-
Risk–Benefit Analysis: Core principle guiding vaccination policy.
UPSC Relevance (GS-wise):
GS 2 – Polity
-
Judicial review of executive action
-
State liability and fundamental rights
-
Role of courts in public health governance
GS 2 – Social Justice
-
Right to health
-
Compensation and victim redressal
-
Ethical dimensions of mass vaccination
GS 3 – Science & Technology
-
Vaccine safety and surveillance
-
Interpreting scientific data in policymaking
-
AEFI monitoring systems
Prelims Focus:
-
Meaning and scope of AEFI
-
Difference between correlation and causation
-
Role of courts in health-related policy disputes
Mains Enrichment:
-
Discuss whether governments should adopt a vaccine injury compensation framework during pandemics.
-
Analyse the challenges courts face in adjudicating cases involving scientific uncertainty and public health policy.