New Delhi, March 10 The Supreme Court on Tuesday directed the Centre to formulate a no-fault compensation policy for serious adverse events following Covid vaccination, stating that the Constitution envisions the State as an active guardian of welfare and dignity, not a "distant spectator" to human suffering.
The court observed that the Covid pandemic was an unprecedented period of suffering and disruption that brought grief and hardship to countless families. It said that the principle of no-fault liability was not alien to Indian law, and was a recognized feature of a welfare-state response in many jurisdictions across the world.
A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta said that during the pandemic, the State went above and beyond to create a vaccination scheme, which undoubtedly helped save many lives.
"However, as the government data itself suggests, it cannot be ignored that the same vaccines also led to loss of life. In such a situation, it is not appropriate for the State to shrug its responsibility in providing aid to those affected families who have lost their loved ones," the bench said.
The bench directed that existing mechanisms for monitoring adverse events following immunization shall continue, and relevant data be periodically placed in the public domain in accordance with the observations made by the top court in its May 2022 verdict in the Jacob Puliyel case.
The bench said that no separate court-appointed expert body is considered necessary in view of existing mechanisms for scientific assessment of adverse events following immunization.
"The Union of India shall, through the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, formulate a no-fault compensation policy for serious adverse events following COVID-19 vaccination," it said.
The bench clarified that its judgment shall not preclude any person from pursuing other remedies available under the law.
"Similarly, the formulation of the no-fault framework shall not be construed as an admission of liability or fault on the part of the Union of India or any authority," it said.
The Supreme Court delivered its verdict on pleas, including one that alleged that two women died in 2021 after taking the first dose of the Covishield vaccine.
The plea, while alleging that both women suffered from severe adverse effects following immunization, had also sought a direction to the authorities to grant monetary compensation to the petitioners, which would be donated by them to organizations working on social issues.
The Supreme Court noted that questions of public health, governance, vaccine approval, and causality involve complex technical considerations, and that the constitutional courts must exercise appropriate restraint in domains entrusted exclusively for determination by the executive branch.
It said that Article 21 of the Constitution was not limited to protection against unlawful deprivation of life, but also includes within its ambit a wide range of other rights that facilitate the smooth operation of the right to life.
"This court has not shied away from upholding this constitutional idea and recognizing that the State bears a positive obligation to safeguard the health of its people and ensure conditions necessary for meaningful enjoyment of life," it said.
The bench said that it was neither adjudicating upon vaccine efficacy nor sitting in scientific review over the regulatory approval process.
It said that Article 21 also embodies a positive obligation of the State to ensure that where grave harm is alleged to have occurred in the course of a State-led public health intervention, affected families are not left without any accessible mechanism of redress.
"The Constitution does not conceive of the State as a distant spectator to human suffering, but as an active guardian of welfare and dignity. The Directive Principles of State Policy illuminate this vision with clarity," the bench said.
The court noted that vaccine injury claims raise questions where scientific attribution is often complex.
"To insist upon proof of negligence and fault in each case would impose an onerous burden upon affected families and would not be the best solution to those left affected," the bench said.
It referred to no-fault compensation schemes incorporating Covid vaccines in Australia, the United Kingdom, and Japan.
It said that immunization was carried out on an unprecedented scale as a collective societal necessity during the pandemic.
"In such a situation, the State cannot be heard to say that those who experience serious adverse consequences must fend for themselves, without any clear or accessible avenue of relief," the bench said.
The court reiterated that the executive, which has been democratically elected by the people of the country and is accountable for its actions to them, is vested with the competence and authority to draft policies.
"But at the same time, this constitutionally protected separation of powers cannot in any scenario come in the way of the judiciary when the fundamental rights of its citizens are violated due to executive policies, or by lack of them, as in this case. In such circumstances, the constitutional duty of this court to safeguard the rights of citizens cannot be eclipsed," it said.