
This article is written by Sohini Adhikary of Adamas University of 2nd Semester of BA.LL.B, an intern under Legal Vidhiya
Abstract
As stricter among the measures against spreading infections, vaccine requirements hold their primary purpose to assist protecting some of the segments of populations.” However, these mandates largely triggered legal, ethical, and social concerns anchored on exemption. Regarding whether people should be compelled to vaccinate, this paper looks at the legal system concerning the use of vaccines and argues about the importance of autonomy and conformity. It examines the biomedical, spiritual, and existential grounds as well as the legal rationales for and against the use of some in particular areas. Based on the information from the analysis of the selected legal systems of the countries, it is possible to present the materials on the characteristics of such direct-stake legislative precedents as Jacobson v. In more detail applying the search to Massachusetts in the United States, the paper describes the principles of the legal considerations regarding vaccination policies. Based on the conceptual framework of the proposed concept, the Indian perspective is used to discuss constitutional liberties such as liberal rights like the right to life, privacy, and religious freedom, and the future legal developments in the said field are also emphasized in the work. This paper also discusses contemporary matters and banishes some of them like COVID-19 which initiated the vaccine mandates discussions along with the concerns regarding the reality of informed consent claims, the principle of proportionality, and public trust. The following issues could be identified: Reviewing these matters, the study will improve the comprehension of how legal systems may address the issue of vaccine mandates and exemptions by protecting the public interest and people’s rights.
Introduction
The science of vaccination is one of the most effective undertakings in public health since it eradicates numerous deaths around the globe. Not only do vaccines keep an individual safe, but also, they provide what is known as herd immunity that protects the other people who cannot be vaccinated, medically. Nevertheless, mandatory vaccination—policies that people must be vaccinated to attend certain events, or space attend certain locations—has generated controversies. All these issues magnify the clash between the principle of liberal individualism and the common good that forms the foundation of many legal, ethical, and social dilemmas. The legal requirements for adults to take vaccines are not a new concept. Looking back to previous centuries, especially the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th century, similar issues exist nowadays. Historical precedents tell us about the smallpox vaccination campaigns. For example, the American case of Jacobson V. Massachusetts (1905).[1]Even as recently as 1905, the Supreme Court of Massachusetts upheld the constitutionality of vaccine mandates to work very much like quarantine measures, the concept of which is valid and enforceable under states’ policeman power under the constitution to protect the health of the entire community. Yet, contemporary crises including fake news, anti-vaccine trending, and new diseases including COVID-19, have raised the necessity of a Critical approach to these policies.
Superimposing exemptions to vaccine mandates makes the scenario even trickier. Medical exemptions that are given to people who have contra-indications to vaccines are not usually in any way contentious. Still, many religious and philosophical exemptions are stirring up controversies due to concerns of people and ethical issues. Indeed, even though based on rights to freedom of religion and personal liberty, these exemptions cause conflict with public health objectives that were either misused or extended too widely. Exemptions based on such conditions may appear or lack adequate legal basis in different jurisdictions due to differences in societies’ values and objectives. Vaccine mandates per se hold competing rationalities in the sphere of law. Health is one of the core state responsibilities and has been spelled out in the International Health Regulations (2005) and various national legal frameworks. At the same time, people have rights of personal identity, including the right to one’s body, right to privacy, freedom of religion, etc., which may be provided for by constitutional and human rights law. Solving these issues presupposes adherence to rules that concern proportionality, necessity, and informed consent.
Analyzing vaccine mandates in India is made possible by the fact that the country has sophisticated legislation governing this area. It should however be noted that the country doesn’t have extra-legal provisions that impose vaccination however the country’s Constitution has provisions for rights that shape these. Right to Health, which has been derived from Article 21 of the Constitution safeguarding the Right to Life and personal liberty. At the same time cases like Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017)[2]. In a similar vein, the Constitution of India as interpreted by the Supreme Court of the Union of India (2017) has accorded much importance to the right to privacy and the right to the hidden body, which means that there might be legal challenges to compulsory vaccines. The COVID-19 pandemic has introduced people to a new kind of vaccine mandate and their needs, even though they are still a subject of discussion and debate. Various governments have implemented or are in the process of implementing vaccine mandates for HCWs, and other at-risk population subgroups, and nearly all such mandates include provisions for exemptions. These policies to resist have elicited issues of protest, legal challenge, and concerns over the locus of the state authority. That is why discussions of compulsory vaccination against COVID-19 have provoked concerns over discrimination, the availability of vaccines, and various adverse effects of mandatory on minorities. This paper aims to review the current knowledge regarding legal aspects of vaccine mandates as well as the existing and future exemptions while focusing on contemporary issues, including misinformation, the Public Health Emergency of International Concern, and ethical aspects of the mandate after the COVID-19 pandemic. Proposing policies that would protect people’s rights while offering duties to serve the public interest leads to enforcing efficient and fair mandates. As societies strive to understand immunization in the 21st century, legal and policy considerations will serve a key role in the advancement of immunization.
Legal Framework
Vaccine mandates are grounded in the principle of safeguarding public health, a responsibility recognized under both international and domestic legal systems. These frameworks establish the legal authority for implementing mandates, the limitations on their exercise, and the balance with individual rights.
International Legal Framework
It is important to appreciate that the study is grounded on the understanding of the WHO, better appreciated through the IHR (2005). Reporting to Understanding of Disease Control, the IHR demands that the Member States cease exporting the diseases, this is, member states are supposed to administer vaccinations in the course of an outbreak. On the other hand, the IHR fosters the ration and respect for human rights and guarantees that such containment measures, such as the vaccination obligatory are, among others, well-founded and non-stigmatizing.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights provides more information and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights added more information. The right to health is given by Article 25 of the UDHR.[3]And the right to health and bodily integrity in Article 12 of the ICESCR[4] Regarding civil and political rights. These rights narrowly put, in addition to other provisions enumerated above collectively establish the legal backdrop upon which mandates in general, and in particular, vaccines sit when compliant with principles of necessity and proportionality.
National Legal Frameworks
- United States
Employer mandates for vaccines in the United States are rooted in states’ police powers, asserted in Jacobson v. Massachusetts (1905). The high court affirmed a vaccination for smallpox based on the right to privacy and said that rights could be limited for the welfare of society. However, subsequent cases have built on upon the concept of mandates to define the areas of mandates and their restriction of constitutional rights including the First Amendment right to free exercise of religion.
States have put statutes mainly in children attending school, and these statutes provide for the exclusion of medical, religious, and in some cases philosophical reasons. For instance, several years ago California decided to remove religious and philosophical options for exemption citing a measles outbreak as the reason, which shows that there was a trend towards greater requirements.
- India
Consistent with constitutional provisions in India, administrative mandates for vaccines are not formally provided in law. Article 21 provides the right to life which includes the right to health while on the other hand, Article 47 creates a fundamental obligation on the state to enhance the health of the public. Legal frameworks within public health specifically the Epidemic Diseases Act, of 1897[5] Give governments the authority to enforce quell during every health outbreak as well as vaccination.
Quarantined mandates that are connected with vaccination could creatively be opposed to the right of privacy that is enunciated in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017). The judgment defined privacy violation in terms of the threefold test of legality, necessity, and proportionality making it difficult for obligatory vaccination to come under constitutional compliance.
- European Union
Some member countries in the European outline specify that they don’t require mandatory vaccination but for those countries that do, the vaccine mandates fall under national laws but must respect ECHR human rights laws. We also know that the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) has delivered its decision concerning the legality of obligatory vaccination in some cases, for instance, Vavricka and Others v. Czech Republic (2021).[6] The court Group supported the Czech Republic’s mandatory vaccination policy and concluded that it applies to children.
Balancing Public Health and Individual Rights
This legal fundamental is recognized all over the world. It more commonly determines first-order legal concerns concerning public health goals as well as individual liberties. This is under the charade of necessity, proportionality, and non-discrimination principles. A vaccine requirement must, therefore, be evidence-based such that schools and other institutions providing the vaccines should declare this and, where possible, ideally do so while providing reasonable flexibility for exemption in exceptional cases such as anaphylactic reaction to substances included in the vaccines. Hence, shifting the attention to the legal aspect of the mandates and individual rights’ protection brings attention to the right and efficient policies.
Types of Exemptions
- Medical Exemptions: Issued to people with certain health conditions that may not allow them to receive any vaccine administrations.
- Religious Exemptions: For anyone who refutes vaccination due to religious beliefs that they hold as genuine, freedom of religion locks it down.
- Philosophical/Personal Belief Exemptions: Allowed in some states for those who ethically or personally consider vaccines to be forbidden; individualism.
Such exemptions differ across the world, however, some countries have lower limits regarding the population’s health.
Judicial Analysis
National courts have had a significant function in developing the legal literature treating mandatory vaccines, the public health necessity vis-à-vis constitutional and humanitarian rights. Reasonableness has been particularly applied to circumstances of vaccine mandates with a focus on marketplace exemptions and equality with other legal rights.
United States
The Jacobson v. Judicial Council serves as one of the most recognized humanitarian cases in the United States. This principle was established in Massachusetts as early as 1905. The Supreme Court agreed with the decision to mandate smallpox vaccination because it demonstrated the rights of the state prevailed over the rights of an individual for purposes of the general public interest. The court noted that moderate regulations directed to the protection of public health powers belong to local state police powers if they are not capricious and oppressive.
Subsequent cases have fine-tuned this balance. In Zucht v. King (1922), the Supreme Court ruled against the illegitimacy of exclusion of children not vaccinated from schools asserting that it falls under Jacobs on decision. But at the same time, courts have also acknowledged restraints on mandates. For example, in Prince v. In 1944 the court case Massachusetts the court again supported the religious freedom rights wanted however it was stated that the religious freedom rights do not encompass rights that can cause harm to the health of the public.
India
India does not adequately distinguish for vaccines but has witnessed such decisions, that interact with the power balance between two cliques, health and freedom. The case of Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) And another v. As soon as the notion of Fundamental Rights is evoked, the recent judgment of the Supreme Court of India in Union of India (2017) comes to mind with the declaration of the Right to Privacy. Newspapers also covered the same court ruling on free privacy holding that; When a privacy violation is desired, it has to meet the conditions of lawfulness, necessity, and proportionality when measuring the right to privacy against the Free Media Right of the public’s right to know.
Based on the above analysis, it can be said that a vaccine mandate must be legally grounded, must serve countervailing public interest, and must be of minimum restrictiveness. In addition, under the constitution, Article 21 there is a right to life with dignity and the right to personal liberty, which includes the right to health. In this respect, the courts have sought to construe this sentence as imposing on the state the obligation to undertake measures for the protection of the health of the people, which can justify mandates during crises of health.
Canada
In Canada, legal issues relating to vaccine mandates are discussed in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Mandates have typically been acceptable where it is reasonable and rational under section 1 of the Charter. For instance, mandates in schools have received support as essential for the conservation of vulnerable groups.
Principles Emerging from Judicial Decisions
Judicial analysis highlights several guiding principles:
- Proportionality: Mandates should be proportional to the risks created by the virus and should be applied in the least restrictive manner.
- Necessity: Mandates should be for a matter of rigorous public importance such as containing and eradicating epidemics.
- Non-Discrimination: Those who did must do so equally without discriminating in favor of some people while denying others a fair chance.
- Scientific Basis: To say whether a mandate is persuasive or not, courts sometimes consider if its support is anchored by research findings.
Contemporary Challenges in Judicial Review
The judicial review has also been triangulated by; vaccine hesitancy, fake news and news, and differential uptake and distribution of the vaccines. The legal systems accord the courts the duty of balancing such factors against the public health needs which are legal and moral as well and keep on changing. It is in this regard that due consideration of the above factors is gained by the judicial decisions concerning the constitution and human rights on the mandates and exceptions for receiving the vaccine.
Conclusion
Vaccine mandates and exemptions represent a critical intersection of public health, law, and ethics. While mandates aim to protect society from infectious diseases and foster herd immunity, they inevitably raise questions about individual autonomy, privacy, and religious freedoms. Courts and policymakers worldwide have recognized the need for a delicate balance between these competing interests, emphasizing the principles of proportionality, necessity, and non-discrimination.
International frameworks, such as the WHO’s International Health Regulations, and national legal systems provide robust mechanisms for implementing mandates while respecting human rights. Judicial precedents, from Jacobson v. Massachusetts in the United States to Vavricka v. Czech Republic in Europe, underline the legitimacy of vaccine mandates when they are grounded in scientific evidence and public necessity. However, these cases also underscore the importance of tailoring mandates to local contexts and ensuring access to vaccines for all.
Exemptions, particularly for medical, religious, and philosophical reasons, are integral to maintaining fairness and respecting diversity in democratic societies. Yet, unchecked exemptions risk undermining public health goals, necessitating clear, evidence-based policies that prevent misuse.
In India, the absence of explicit vaccine mandate laws is counterbalanced by constitutional protections for life and health. The jurisprudence emerging from privacy and public health cases highlights a framework for potential mandates, focusing on inclusivity and minimal infringement of rights.
As the world grapples with ongoing and future health crises, the legal frameworks surrounding vaccine mandates must evolve to address modern challenges such as misinformation, vaccine hesitancy, and inequality. By embedding these policies within sound legal principles and ethical considerations, societies can ensure that vaccine mandates not only protect public health but also uphold the values of justice and equity.
References
- World Health Organization (WHO), International Health Regulations (2005), (3rd ed. 2016), https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789241580496.
- Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Understanding Herd Immunity, https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/immunity-types.htm (last visited Jan. 12, 2025).
- David M. Oshinsky, Polio: An American Story 135–68 (2005).
- Dorothy M. Chin et al., Ethical Considerations in COVID-19 Vaccine Mandates, 45 J.L. Med. & Ethics 101 (2021).
- Karen Kaplan, The Vaccine Mandate Debate: Balancing Rights and Public Health, 56 Harv. Health Pol’y Rev. 231 (2022).
[1] Jacobson V. Massachusetts, 197 U.S 11 (1905)
[2] Justice K.S. Puttaswamy V. Union of India (2017), 10 SCC 1 (India)
[3] Article 25, Universal Declaration of Human Rights, G.A. Res. 217A, U.N. Doc. A/810 (1948)
[4] Article 12, International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Dec. 16, 1966, 993 U.N.T.S. 3.
[5] Epidemic Diseases Act, No. 3 of 1897, India Code (1897).
[6] Vavricka and Others v. Czech Republic, App. No. 47621/13, Eur. Ct. H.R. (2021).
Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or the materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is personal.
0 Comments