[BREAKING] Forced Vaccination violates fundamental right: Meghalaya High Court [READ JUDGMENT]

The Meghalaya High Court has held that vaccination administered by way of coercive methods vitiates the fundamental purpose of welfare attached to vaccination ( Registrar General, High Court of Meghalaya v. State of Meghalaya )

. Thus, forcing shopkeepers, vendors, local taxi drivers etc. to get vaccinated as a condition for resuming their business or profession will fall foul of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution, the Court said.

“However, vaccination by force or being made mandatory by adopting coercive methods, vitiates the very fundamental purpose of the welfare attached to it. It impinges on the fundamental right(s) as such, especially when it affects the right to means of livelihood which makes it possible for a person to live," the judgment stated.

. The observations were made after it was brought to the notice of the Court that the State, through various orders passed by Deputy Commissioners, had mandated shopkeepers, vendors, local taxi drivers etc. to get themselves vaccinated before resuming their business.

The Court discussed two questions in this regard:

A) Whether vaccination can at all be made mandatory,

B) Whether such mandatory action can adversely affect the right of a citizen to earn their livelihood.

. At the outset, the Bench of Chief Justice Biswanath Somadder and Justice HS Thangkhiew noted that vaccination is the need of the hour and absolutely necessary to overcome the pandemic.

. The Court, however, observed that no action of the State shall be in derogation of the fundamental right to livelihood enshrined under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution unless it falls within the ambit of reasonable restrictions.

"As held in Olga Tellis & Ors vs. Bombay Municipal Corporation, right to life includes right to the means of livelihood. Any action of the State which is in absolute derogation of this basic principle is squarely affected by Article 19(1)(g). Although, Article 19(6) prescribes 'reasonable restrictions' in the 'interest of general public, the present instance is exemplary and clearly distinguishable, ” the Court said.

. The Court relied on judgments more than a century old to establish that a coercive element to vaccination has time and again been discouraged and consistently ruled against by several Courts.

“ Around one hundred and seven (107) years ago, in Schloendroff v Society of New York Hospitals, NY Justice Cardozo ruled that ‘every human being of adult years and sound mind has a right to determine what shall be done with their body’. Thus, by use of force or through deception if an unwilling capable adult is made to have the ‘flu vaccine would be considered both a crime and tort or civil’ wrong, as was ruled in Airedale NHS Trust v Bland reported around thirty years (30) ago .”

. The Bench also drew a comparison between intrusion to one’s body through a needle to other issues concerning personal and bodily autonomy,

“Whether to subject oneself to an intrusion of his/her body, even if of minor intensity, e.g., through a needle, concerns issues of personal and bodily autonomy and bodily integrity, similar to abortion rights or non-sterilization rights or even sex reassignment surgeries, irrespective of what consequences the individual might be inviting.”

. Further discussing the State’s responsibility to disseminate accurate information and avoid spread of misinformation the Court underscored that the burden lies on the State to senisitze citizens about the pros and cons of vaccination.

“ The burden lies on the State to disseminate and sensitize the citizens of the entire exercise of vaccination with its pros and cons and facilitate informed decision making particularly in a situation where the beneficiaries are skeptical, susceptible and belonging to vulnerable/marginalised section of the society, some of whom are also gullible members of the indigenous communities who are constantly being fed with deliberate misinformation regarding the efficacy of vaccination by some persons/organisations with oblique motives .”

. The Principal Secretary stated that the existing orders on vaccine compliance will be modified, and the requirement of vaccination would be made directory and not mandatory. The Court found this a step in the right direction.

. The Bench also issued guidelines to ensure that the public at large is able to make an informed choice.

(i) All shops/establishments/local taxis/auto-rickshaws/maxi cabs and buses should display prominently at a conspicuous place, a sign, “VACCINATED”, in the event all employees and staff of the concerned shop/establishment are vaccinated. Similarly, in the case of local taxis/auto-rickshaws/maxi cabs and buses where the concerned driver or conductor or helper(s) are vaccinated.

(ii) All shops/establishments/local taxis/auto-rickshaws/maxi cabs and buses should display prominently at a conspicuous place, a sign, “NOT VACCINATED”, in the event all the employees and staff of the concerned shop/establishment are not vaccinated. Similarly, in the case of local taxis/auto-rickshaws/maxi cabs and buses where the concerned driver or conductor or helper(s) are not vaccinated.

Closure/stoppage of plying was directed for those who flout these guidelines.

. The matter will be heard again on June 30 for the Court to monitor the issue closely in aiding the State to overcome the problem of vaccine hesitancy.

. [Read Judgment]

[BREAKING] Forced Vaccination violates fundamental right: Meghalaya High Court [READ JUDGMENT]

Shagun Suryam

Related Stories