The Madras High Court on Friday declined to halt the administration of Serum Institute's COVISHIELD COVID-19 vaccine opining that there should be clinching evidence to substantiate the petitioner's allegations that the vaccine is unsafe, before the Court can pass a direction to stop its use. .Justice Abdul Quddhose was dealing with a petition filed by a Chennai-based business consultant who claimed that he suffered severe side effects due to a dose of COVISHIELD in its third phase (Asif Riaz v Government of India and ors). .Plea in Madras High Court claims "COVISHIELD vaccine not safe for all;" seeks Rs 5 crore damages from Serum Institute alleging adverse reaction.The petitioner claimed that he suffered acute neurological encephalopathy (altered mental state due to systemic factors) due to a vaccine dose he took in October last year..Advocate NGR Prasad, appearing for the petitioner, argued that after notice was issued in the last hearing, certain developments had taken place. "European countries have halted this vaccine because of its side effects. For them it is a matter of money, for me it is a matter of lives... European countries have postponed the administration of this vaccine," Prasad submitted..Considering the alleged adverse effects, he urged that India should also adopt similar measures..Justice Quddhose, however, declined to issued such a direction, observing"(It) cannot be done now. We need to have some clinching evidence.".Appearing for Serum Institute of India, Senior Advocate PS Raman told the Court that there were some concerns reagrding the maintainability of the petition itself, which seeks directions for the payment of Rs 5 crores as damages. .The Court told Raman that the counter-affidavit may be filed both on merits and maintainability. .Appearing for the Central Government, Additional Solicitor General of India, G Sankaranarayanan told the Court that the report of the Ethics Committee is awaited in the matter. He, therefore, requested for some time before a response can be made to the petition. .In view of these submissions, the Court proceeded to adjourn the case till June 9.