Jacob Puliyel Versus Union of India & Ors.

Case Comment

Citation	Writ Petition (Civil) No. 607 of 2021(1)
Date of Judgement	2nd May 2022
Petitioner’s Name	Jacob Puliyel
Respondent’s Name	Union of India & Ors
Court	Supreme Court of India (Civil Original Jurisdiction)
Bench	Justice L. Nageswara Rao & Justice B.R Gavai
Important Section/Article of Law	Article 21 of the Constitution of India (2)

Facts :

1. In April 2021, the Indian government unveiled a plan to make COVID-19 vaccination available to all individuals aged 18 and above. Subsequently, in May 2021, they also declared compulsory vaccination for certain categories, including healthcare and frontline personnel.

• The Petitioner Mr Jacob Puliyel filed a writ Petition in the interest of Public before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India to direct the government to release the Trial data of the Covid-19 vaccines namely “Covishield” & “Covaxin” ,which was supposed to be administered to the citizens of India, to prevent the infection and transmission of Covid-19

•  The Petitioner was a member of the National Technical Advisory Group on Immunization (NTAGI) ,a committee which was Advising the Government of India on Vaccines.

• The Petitioner sought the proper details of the meetings of the Subject expert committee and wanted the Government to disclose the reasons behind the approval of the vaccines to be used in emergency.

• The Petitioner further sought information with respect to the post-vaccine adverse effects and the side effects of the vaccines so that the common people to whom the vaccines will be administered become aware of the side effects and adverse effects of the vaccine.

• The Petitioner in the above writ Petition also challenged the decision of the Government of India to make vaccination compulsory for Healthcare and Frontline workers (Coercive Vaccination) on the ground that such decision is in violation of Article 21 ^(***) of the Constitution of India.

Issues :

1. Does the Vaccination Mandate contravene Article 21 of the Constitution of India ^(***) ?

• Is there public access to the distinct clinical Trial data of the vaccines ?

• Was the collection and reporting of the Adverse Events Following Immunization (AEFI’S) conducted correctly.

• Is the proposed vaccines safe for minors and childrens ?

• Whether Natural Immunity is stronger than the immunity developed after Vaccination

• Whether the vaccines will be able to tackle the self-mutating and highly transmittable future variants of the Covid-19 ?

Contentions :

1. Mandatory Vaccination is a violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India ^(***)

The Petitioner contended that compulsory vaccination infringes upon Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, as it involves the government taking control over the citizen’s choice of whether to get vaccinated or not to get vaccinated. The Petitioner further submits that , the restrictions which have been imposed on individuals who are not vaccinated which includes limitation on their movement infringes upon the fundamental rights of the individuals.

• Safety Concerns with respect to vaccines for the children :

Vaccines should not be administered without thorough evaluation and the process of evaluation of vaccines takes time. In the present scenario, it doesn’t seem that a proper evaluation of vaccines has been done. Further, it is submitted that children have developed natural immunity to Covid-19, which makes them less susceptible to the virus, therefore administering vaccines to children may be detrimental to their health and growth.

• Lack of Transparency in the Release of the Clinical Trial Data  :

The Petitioner contended that the non disclosure of the clinical Trial data constitutes a violation of the individuals right to be informed about the vaccine and its potential side effects of their health. Every Individuals health status varies and some individuals experienced severe weakness and acute fever post vaccination. The Petitioner further submitted that, it is the duty of the government to ensure that people are well informed about the adverse / side effects of the vaccines so that the individuals can take informed decisions with respect to the suitability of the vaccine based on there medical condition.

• Improper Reporting of the Adverse Events Following Immunization (AEFI) :

The Petitioner contended that a comprehensive assessment of the vaccine’s adverse effects had not be been conducted, which has caused a lack of awareness among the general public regarding the potential post-vaccine side effects.  The Petitioner has also pointed the failure on part of the government to implement the appropriate measures to tackle these adverse effects. Further the new variant of the Covid-19 virus can affect the health of both vaccinated and non-vaccinated individuals. Considering that the vaccinations purpose is not fully achieved , the Petitioner questioned the government’s basis of making it mandatory.

Rationale :

Regarding the issue of making Vaccines Mandatory, the court acknowledged the dynamic character of the virus and took into account the worldwide directives issued by the World Health Organization. The court further held that the government’s vaccination campaign is made In the interest of Public health and Public Welfare. It is essential to highlight that in the context of personal autonomy the court held that :

1. Article 21 ^(***) safeguards bodily integrity and no individual can be forced to undergo vaccination.
2. Bodily Integrity encompasses the right to life and the right to decline medical treatment.
3. Citizens have the option to abstain from vaccinations.
4. If data demonstrates that these individuals could potentially transmit the virus and pose a threat to public health, the Government can implement reasonable measures to address such cases.

Regarding the issue of lack of public access to the distinct clinical Trial data of the vaccines, the court observed that there exist various lengthy and complex legal requirements that the vaccine manufacturer must adhere to during the various phases of the trial of the vaccine. Further, the court rejected the Petitioners contention that approval of the vaccine was given hastily in a improper manner without conducting a thorough clinical trial. Further, the court also acknowledged the fact that both vaccines had obtained approval from the World Health Organization.

With Respect to the issue of improper collection and reporting of the Adverse Events Following Immunization (AEFI’S) , the court observed that based on the information provided by the Government of India, there is a clearly established system in place for the collection of data regarding the adverse events caused by Covid-19 vaccines. Hence the court dismissed the Petitioners contention with respect to the Improper Reporting of the Adverse Events Following Immunization (AEFI).

Regarding the safety concerns with respect to the use of vaccines on children and minors, the court expressed that it couldn’t assess or give a judgment on the safety and effectiveness of the vaccine on the children and the minors, as this matter involves medical expertise.

The Court dismissed the writ petition affirming that no one can be compelled to take the vaccination, but the court also held that the restriction on the individuals is not arbitrary and is important to safeguard public health.

Defects in Law  :

The Notification issued by the Central Government on May 2021 which declared compulsory vaccination for certain categories, including healthcare and frontline personnel has the following defects :

1. This Notification is in violation of Article 21 of the Constitution, which deals with the Right to Life and Personal Liberty as the government is forcing certain categories of citizens to take the vaccine without even knowing the side effects of the vaccine, this can hamper the health of the citizen and hence it is in violation of Article 21 which also includes Right to Health.

1. This Notification imposes a health risk on the citizens who will be compulsorily required to get vaccinated as there lack of transparency with respect to the adverse or harmful side effects of the vaccine and Lack of Transparency in the Release of the Clinical Trial Data.
2. Further the compulsory vaccination of people suffering from diseases or ailments other than COVID-19 can lead to a adverse effect on the health of such Individuals.

Inference  :

The Court, in this Instance, dismissed the Writ Petition filled by the Petitioner . Its essential to highlight that the court provided a comprehensive reflection on the importance of upholding personal autonomy. It underscored that any mandate conflicting with personal autonomy must be founded on sound reasoning and proportionality. This case reinforces the existing legal stance that any unwarranted infringement upon personal autonomy is deemed to be unconstitutional and executive decisions in such matters are subject to judicial review, even when they pertain to critical public health.

However, it is worth noting that the court’s observations were made in consideration of both past and present circumstances. Looking forward to the future, the court offered suggestions to the government rather than issuing directives. This nuanced approach reflects the courts recognition of the evolving nature of the situation and the need for flexibility in addressing complex issues while preserving individual rights.

The Supreme Court in this case addressed the majority of the concerns raised by the Petitioner. However, there was no discussion regarding the minimum time required to assess and properly examine the long-term adverse effects of the vaccines as some side effects may manifest after the passage of a reasonable time. It can be argued that this position was due to the emergency-like nature of the situation. I would like to end this case comment by saying that the Supreme Court has tried this matter of grave importance in a very pragmatic way and opened the ground for further discussions on this matter. Further, it is also important to note that the Supreme Court in this particular case has given Article 21 supremacy over any decision of the Government, but on the same time the Supreme Court has also held that the restriction imposed by the Government is not arbitrary in nature. Therefore, we can say that this judgement is a very balanced judgement keeping in mind the aspect to public health and public interest.

Case Comment Written by :

Yogesh Somani

ILS Law College, Pune