JACOB PULIYEL V/S UNION OF INDIA AND ORS (2022)
| Citation | WP 607 OF 2021 SC 533 |
| Date of Judgement | 2 May 2022 |
| Court | Supreme Court of India |
| Case Type | Civil Writ Petition |
| Appellant | Jacob Puliyel |
| Respondent | Union of India and others |
| Bench | Justice L. Nageswara Rao, B.R. Gavai |
| Referred | Art 21 |
FACTS OF THE CASE
The case was filed by Dr Jacob Puliyel, a member of the National Technical Advisory Group for Immunization (NTAGI). He expressed his opinion to the Government of India regarding the COVID-19 Vaccine. He filed a Writ Petition in The Hon’be Court pleading the following reliefs:
- Direct the Government to release logs and data of the trial phases as well as the detailed minutes of the Subject Expert Committee and NTGAI meetings in concern to the vaccines in India.
- Direct Respondent to disclose after effects and post vaccination data and to publicly make available toll free numbers and links where complaints may be registered in case of grievances.
- Direct them to disclose the decision along with the reason taken by DCGI for the approval or rejection of application for authorization of vaccines.
The Petitioner highlighted the grave consequences on rash approvals on vaccines and their adverse effects on the population. They stated that the coercive nature of authorization of vaccinations in India would result in harming the principle of “self determination” of individuals and is a violation of Article 21 of The Indian Constitution. The notice was issued on 09.08.21 and an affidavit filed on 03.09.21 including additional issues.
ISSUES OF THE CASE
The Hon’ble Supreme court in the case laid down the following issues:
- Whether vaccination mandates are violation of Article 21?
- Whether it is necessary to make Segregated Clinical Trial Data publicly available to all to review the research and development of the Government?
- Whether the vaccination must be given to children keeping in mind its adverse effects on an adult at this stage of the immunization drive?
- Whether AEFI monitoring is done rightfully?
The Court highlighted certain “Preliminary Issues” in the writ petition after the contentions were put forth by both the parties, the issues being:
- Maintainability of the Petition.
- Judicial review of executive decisions based on expert opinion
The Hon’ble Supreme Court taking into consideration the present conditions heard the arguments of both the parties and provided reasoning in its judgement.
CONTENTIONS OF THE PETITIONER
In their additional affidavit the Petitioner stated that the natural immunity of an individual is strong and long lasting and that vaccines do not prevent the transmission of COVID-19. He added that the vaccines are proving to be inefficient against the new variant of the COVID-19 virus. To support such claims, the petitions supported his argument by the articles and news by the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) in June and July of 2021 which stated that 2/3 of the Indian population above the age of 6 years has been vaccinated. He contented that vaccine mandates are meaningless considering that they have resulted in severe infection spreads and even deaths. He seekes from court restrain all public and private organizations and establishments from mandating the vaccines as it would lead to violation of their fundamental rights by restricting access to resources, earning livelihood and enjoying their rights provided under the law. The petitioner also added that according to the scientific studies it was seen that unvaccinated persons do not pose higher danger than that of vaccinated persons.
The counsel of the petitioner supported their claims with cases from New Zealand High court,
Ryan Yardley vs Minister for Workplace Relations and Safet. They added that the judgement relied upon by the respondent are not applicable depending upon the facts of the cases and referred to Delhi Development Authority vs Joint Action Committee and other such cases to support their views.
The counsel of the petitioner presented in court their views that the AEFIs and adverse effects of the vaccine have been due to the carelessness by the Government and their planning and so it is advised to not allow the immunization of children as it will prove to be dangerous. The petitioner claimed tat most children had already developed immunity to the virus and there was no immediate need to vaccinate them.
CONTENTION OF THE RESPONDENT
The Union government posed its arguments against the contentions laid down by the petitioner. They firstly said that keeping in mind the global conditions due to the unprecedented pandemic has led to a catastrophic situation and controlling the spread of the infection must be the primary objective. The respondent added that Indian being one of the few countries being able to manufacture the vaccines COVISHIELD and COVAXIN in limited time is an achievement on behalf of the Government. The respondent put forth the concern that keeping in mind the hesitancy regarding immunization, any new interference in the steps taken by NTAGI and the Union Government may lead to uncontrolled spread of the virus again. They added that the public restrictions were imposed for the greater good of the people and the society and to protect their safety. These restrictions are not stringent and will be regulated and modified according to the needs of the citizens as well as the situation at hand.
In response to the availability of data, the Government added that all relevant data is available in public domain, keeping in mind the confidentiality of ICMR regulations and the Human Research Data.
In addition to the above arguments, they presented before the Hon’be Court that all measure are taken with detailed prior approvals and there are checks made at every stage to ensure the delivery of best services. The monitoring of AEFIs are a part of a small sect of people negatively affected by the vaccine and have been taken into consideration by the trained experts . The Respondent puts emphasis on the fact that the Government in its notification has encouraged people to take the vaccine and never imposed a burden on them, it is a voluntary step that must be made considering the prevalent conditions. They supported their arguments by citing cases before the court, Academy of Nutrition Improvement vs Union of India , G.
Sundarrajan vs Union of India, Shri Sitaram Sugar Company Ltd. vs Union of India of the Indian courts. They also referred to cases of the US Supreme Court, Henning Jacobson vs Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Joseph R. Biden vs Missouri ( 2022).
The Union of India argued in court that the petition is not maintainable and must be dismissed as the petitioner, being a member of the NTAGI, is acting oblivious to the conditions in the country caused by the pandemic.
JUDGEMENT PASSED BY THE COURT
The court after looking over the statements presented bore its decision along with reasoning on tackling the issues listed in the above case. The court agreed with the contention of the petitioner that policy making may be an executive function of the state; however, it is interlinked to other functions. The Court has the power to review and investigate that the policies drafted by such persons are reasonable, efficient and appropriate for the society and caters to their needs. Focusing on the most important aspect of the contentions laid down by the petitioner, Article 21 is a fundamental right granted to every citizen of India under the Constitution. It solely focuses on physical freedom and hence no person can be forced to take the COVID-19 vaccination. They have the right to refuse such highly acclaimed medical care made available to all at such a crucial stage during the pandemic. The court further explained that the right to vaccinate is seen to be an arm of Article 21 as it is an umbrella term and includes various facets.
The Court in its judgement also includes that despite such freedom to not get vaccinated, it is the duty of the Government to make people aware of the benefits for such vaccination and encourage them to take necessary steps for public good. Furthermore, the court held that the trial results are not a breach of any prior agreements of organizations and must be made freely accessible to public within a year on conclusion of such research. The people of India have the right to access data and to further decide their future according to the provided data. Article 21 of the Constitution provides for bodily integrity as a right to each individual, here the right to refuse medical treatment is also an inclusion. In addition to this the court saw that the current vaccination policy in the country is relevant considering the present conditions and cannot be said to be “arbitrary and unfair”
Regarding the issue of spread of the virus by unvaccinated persons, the court said that the transmission of the virus is almost the same in case of vaccinated and affected persons and hence such restrictions imposed by the Governments cannot be said to be proportionate. The court further ordered that any previous restrictions in public places, private establishments must be reviewed accordingly so as to not cause disparity and harm the rights of an individual. In view of the publication of Trial Data, the court laid down that such plea cannot be entertained as relevant data is already available in the public domain and no other detailed intricacies are required to be made public by SEC and NTAGI. The court stroked down the contention of AEFIs being faulty and regarding severe after effects and deaths due to vaccination. However the court believes that the information concerning the adverse effects of the vaccinations are crucial and must be made known to the people as it is instrumental in the further scientific studies based on the pandemic. The court asked the Union Government to focus on collection of data regarding adverse effects and increase the awareness to report such cases by individuals and private doctors.
On the issue of pediatric vaccination, the court held that the decision taken by the Union Government is in regard to guidelines by higher scientific organisation like WHO, CDC and UNICEF and it is beyond the scope of the court to judge such expert opinion. In addition to this, the court emphasized that further development and decisions taken by these bodies must be made aware to the public at the earliest. The court, keeping in mind all the aspects of the petition as well as the state of the country during such a time gave the above conclusion and disposed of the writ petition.
REFRENCES USED
This article is written by Ravishma Sharma, a student at Vivekananda Institute of Professional Studies, 4th Year, an Intern at Legal Vidhya.
