[COVID-19] No one can be forced to get vaccinated but bodily autonomy can be regulated: Supreme Court upholds vaccination policy

The Supreme Court on Monday ruled that while no individual can be forced to get vaccinated, the current vaccination policy followed by government as regards restrictions imposed on individuals, is not arbitrary [Dr Jacob Puliyel vs Union of India].

. A bench of Justices L Nageswara Rao and BR Gavai held that on the basis of available material, and considering expert views on severe diseases, hospital admissions etc., the current vaccine policy cannot be said to be unreasonable.

"This court is satisfied that current vaccine policy cannot be said to be manifestly arbitrary," the Court ruled.

Community interest outweighs individual interest, the bench added.

The Court, however, made it clear that vaccines cannot be mandatory and no person can be forced to get vaccinated against his or her wishes though the government can regulate the bodily autonomy of individuals.

"Considering bodily autonomy, bodily integrity is protected under article 21. No one can be forced to get vaccinated. (But) government can regulate in areas of bodily autonomy," the bench said.

The Court, however, said that as long as COVID numbers are low, no restriction should be placed on individuals from accessing public areas and the same should be recalled if such restrictions are in place.

"Till numbers are low, we suggest that relevant orders are followed and no restriction is imposed on individuals on access to public areas or recall the same if already not done," the judgment stated.

Pertinently, the Court ordered that all COVID vaccine trial data including of future trials should be put in public domain subject to protection of privacy of individuals who were subjected to such trials.

"Regarding segregation of vaccine trial data, subject to privacy of individuals, all trials conducted and to be subsequently conducted, all data must be made available to the public without further delay," the judgment said.

. Below are the five takeaways from the judgment:

. 1. No one can be forced to be vaccinated;

2. Central government directed to make public adverse effects of vaccination;

3. Current COVID vaccination policy is not unreasonable or arbitrary;

4. Vaccine trial data should be put in public domain;

5. Court cannot second guess scientific or expert opinion.

. On the aspect of bodily autonomy the court has noted that "bodily integrity is protected under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and no individual can be forced to be vaccinated".

Further the court stated that Personal autonomy of an individual involves the right of an individual to determine how they should live their own life, which consequently encompasses the right to refuse to undergo any medical treatment in the sphere of individual health.

However, on the aspect of regulation, the top court has held that government can regulate such bodily autonomy if the person is a threat to others.

. "If there is a likelihood of such individuals spreading the infection to other people or contributing to mutation of the virus or burdening of the public health infrastructure, thereby affecting communitarian health at large, protection of which is undoubtedly a legitimate State aim of paramount significance in this collective battle against the pandemic, the Government can regulate such public health concerns by imposing certain limitations on individual rights that are reasonable and proportionate to the object sought to be fulfilled ," reads the judgment.

. No one can be forced to get vaccinated. Supreme Court . The judgment was delivered on a petition filed by Dr. Jacob Puliyel , former member of the National Technical Advisory Group, seeking disclosure of clinical trial data of COVID vaccines and a declaration that making vaccination mandatory is unconstitutional.

He prayed for a declaration that mandating vaccination for COVID, in any manner whatsoever, even by way of making it a precondition for accessing any benefits or services, is a violation of rights of citizens and unconstitutional.

The plea also alleged that the vaccines currently being administered have not been adequately tested for safety or efficacy are now licensed under emergency use authorisation without the data being disclosed to the public.

"In India, the manner in which the vaccines have been licensed vitiates and even precludes the possibility that the vaccines can be evaluated objectively in the future," the petition had stated.

The petitioner and handful of others like him would be enabled to create serious misgivings and misconceived doubts against the vaccination, it was argued.

Advocate Guru Krishna Kumar for Bharat Biotech, the makers of Covaxin, had submitted that the allegation of Phase III trial data not being published was incorrect.

" This is an attempt to release a cat among the pigeons " the counsel argued.

Counsel for the Serum Insitute of India, which produces and markets Covishield vaccine, submitted that the matter is infructuous and all necessary data was already with the regulators.

Rebutting these arguments, advocate Prashant Bhushan, representing the petitioner, had contended that a vaccinated person transmits the virus as much as an unvaccinated.

" If I am COVID recovered and vaccinated even then I will be at equal risk of transmitting it to others, if i am infected again. If vaccination is not helping in reducing the transmission, then it is my decision to get vaccinated or not. It is my decision and it is my life. Serological survey shows that more than 80 percent of Delhi's population have had the infection. Mere assertion by the govt is not enough if I have produced evidence. Vaccine mimics a natural infection. There is no scientific journal in this world which disputes this proposition. "

Bhushan also alleged regularities regarding the grant of emergency use authorisation to Covaxin, adding that there have been adverse effects to the vaccine.

" It is very clear from data that the people who have had infection is immune to reinfection. Vaccine is only mimicking a part of the virus and when you get the whole infection, you have the whole virus and thereby you develop all necessary anti bodies. "

Solicitor General (SG) Tushar Mehta, representing the Central government, had argued that the government was only trying to encourage vaccination, and that the petitioner's stand may be to the detriment of others as it will lead to vaccine hesitancy.

The SG had pointed out that clinical data and vaccine vial monitors are updated on a real-time basis and vaccines stored safely in cold storage.

The Central government contended that the plea goes against national interest and would violate the rights of citizens to get vaccinated against the virus.

In its affidavit, the Central government said that the petition directly harms public interest.

"At this juncture, the entire concentration of the Central Government and the State Governments should be and is on vaccination drive and encouraging people to get them vaccinated. It is, therefore, not desirable at this juncture to invest time finding out motives behind few elements attempting to act against the interest of nation at the cost of violating the right of crores of citizens to be protected from pandemic," the Central government had said in its affidavit.

The top court had during one of the previous hearings made clear that adjudicating the matter cannot be construed as a signal that it does not trust the efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines. It had nevertheless sought the Central government's response .

. (Read Judgment)

[COVID-19] No one can be forced to get vaccinated but bodily autonomy can be regulated: Supreme Court upholds vaccination policy

Debayan Roy

Related Stories