Jacob Puliyel v. Union Of India
Himani
It has been written by Himani, a second-year law student of Department of Laws, Panjab University, Chandigarh
Case No. Writ Petition (Civil) No. 607/2021
Decided on 02-05-2022
Court- Supreme Court of India
Bench- Hon'ble Justice L. Nageswara Rao
Hon'ble Justice B.R. Gavai
Parties-
Petitioner- Jacob Puliyel
Respondent- Union of India and Ors.
Statutes- The Constitution of India
INTRODUCTION
The case is a leading example of a legal battle in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic in India. The petitioner is a paediatrician and a member of the National Technical Advisory Group on Immunisation proceeded to the Supreme Court of India. In his arguments he objected to the unreasonable demands of the government to force the public to take vaccines as a condition for accessing certain services since this was against the rights contained in the Indian Constitution namely right to life and personal liberty that is enshrined under article 21 . He went to court to seek an injunction in an endeavor to make the producers of vaccines require the persons who were receiving the vaccines to do so after being furnished with all the necessary information that encompasses the vaccine. The case demonstrated to be successful in outlining both the conflict of interest of measures for the public health plus the limitation of individual rights during a period of public health.
FACTS OF THE CASE
The petitioner was a member of the National Technical Advisory Group on Immunization (NTAGI) assisted the Indian Government with the vaccinations.
He thought that the immunization requirements were incorrect and wanted access to data from vaccine trials. He objected that vaccination obligations were unreasonable and unconstitutional and urged openness surrounding the vaccine trials.
The SC looked at whether vaccination laws were against the guarantee of private and individual liberty found in Article 21 of the Constitution. In their petition, it was argued that it was illegal and a violation of people’s rights under Article 21 to be forced to take vaccines without their consent.
He said that India's emergency vaccination authorization had drawbacks. We require them to be open and honest when they submit data from immunization clinical trials. It is not cool that the expert bodies' guidelines and the approval procedure are opaque. When people incorrectly evaluate the side effects of vaccinations, they violate informed consent.
ISSUES RAISED
Is the compulsory vaccination violating Indian Constitution’s Article 21?
Is there any improper collection and reporting of the data by Adverse Events Following Immunization (AEFIs)?
Are the children safe to get vaccination vaccines?
Can general public obtain the segregated clinical trial data?
CONTENTIONS ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER
The Petitioner argued that although the government (including certain state governments) can advocate vaccination but the forced vaccination is unconstitutional. They also mentioned how the immunity you get after having Covid-19 is better and lasts longer than immunity from vaccines.
The Petitioner said that the public had not been given the access to COVAXIN and COVISHIELD clinical trial data and thus prevented the people to choose whether or not to get the vaccine. In order to ascertain the negative effects across a range of age ranges and varied communities and, thus, empower people to make more informed decisions about whether to become vaccinated, he suggested the sharing of segregated data from clinical studies.
The petitioner pointed out that the government was wrong to categorize the already-known effects as the vaccine effects & the company that the phase III trials targeted a few patients and therefore could not come up with any proof of increased adverse events. He also pointed out that there was inefficiency, opaqueness, and closure within the reporting of the adverse events in India.
It was also pointed out that those who have been vaccinated or people who have not, can contaminate the other people with the virus because the current type of vaccinations does not protect against mutations. Some of the references used were limited Scholarly publications and research were used to justify the assertions made above.
The petitioner’s argument was that the stimulus of vaccinations has more harm than good through researching on numbers. Additionally, he disclosed that several studies have indicated that several young people have developed immunity against the coronavirus illness. He also stated that the literature points to possible adverse teenager consequences after vaccination.
CONTENTIONS ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT
The UOI rebutted the first argument, stating that vaccinations are a safe and effective way to combat the virus and that any indulgence on the part of the court would exacerbate the already widespread vaccine hesitancy in the nation. Additionally, it argued that the approval of emergency authorizations of vaccines, related clinical trials, etc., are all conducted in accordance with the legal framework of the nation.
The state governments of MP, Tamil Nadu, Maharashtra, and the National Capital Territory of Delhi contended that any vaccination laws imposed in these states—which included stringent prohibitions against unvaccinated individuals—were formulated with consideration for the greater good of the public and the community's overall health and safety. These laws were then periodically updated in light of the pandemic's changing circumstances.
Union Government, on the other hand contented that expert judgments were made and that trials were carried out in accordance with international standards while being supervised by regulatory agencies.
There was a delay in releasing the data into the public domain since the primary priority was making the vaccinations accessible to the general people. Additionally, it was mentioned that the necessary expert committees were formulated and consulted before the emergency usage licenses were issued.
The UOI averred that adequate precaution was conducted to meticulously follow the national adverse event following immunization surveillance guidelines, which highlight the procedures and policies on the management of adverse events following immunization.
A group of highly qualified subject matter specialists quickly evaluates, analyzes, and determines the cause of all occurrences of significant and severe AEFIs, including those involving reported deaths. It was made clear that the vaccine should not be blamed for an AEFI case just because it was reported.
The UOI responded by stating that pediatric vaccination is suggested by the global agencies such as the WHO, UNICEF, and the CDC. Expert opinion in India is also in sync with such international organizations. The UOI strengthened its argument by sharing vaccination stats showing the safety of vaccines for kids.
JUDGMENT
The court unanimously held that though the bodily integrity and the personal autonomy are protected under Article 21 , the Government is entitled to limit the individual rights in the interest of protecting the public health. The Court observed that a clear system for gathering information on adverse events related to Covid-19 vaccinations is in place, based on the data provided by the UOI. There is a connection between reporting adverse occurrences and medical professionals working at private institutions. In light of the declining COVID-19 infection rates, it was also advised that all authorities, including all public and private organizations, reevaluate the current vaccination requirements. The Court mentioned that vaccine trial outcomes were shared according to the rules and checked by experts.
The Court reaffirmed that its suggestions to reevaluate COVID-19 vaccination requirements were limited to the specifics of the current case. It emphasized that the government was free to take appropriate action in the future to promote public health.
The court said that making people get vaccinated forcefully would break their privacy right protected by Article 21 of the Constitution. The court further held that there was no issue bodily integrity violation because getting the COVID-19 vaccine in India was a choice. The three-part test of legality, necessity, and proportionality—established in 2017 case was employed by the Court. It was held that this triple standard would need to be satisfied for any legal limitation on a person's right to bodily autonomy.
CONCLUSION
While dismissing the writ petition, the court highlighted the value of the right to bodily autonomy and made a comparison between it and the requirements of the general public. It tries to find a middle ground between two conflicting values to give the option for medical treatment to the individual and at the same time not to impact the society as it directs the Union to make data sets available in public domains. The Court stated that people should be allowed to go to certain public places irrespective of the cases that are being reported especially when the cases are few, and if there are prohibitive restrictions, they should be lifted immediately.
The court’s admission of its deficiency in scientific expertise and trusting the executive branch to make decisions using the scientific information one again enshrines the court as the protector of the Constitution and its adherence to its founding principles.
REFERENCES-
Jacob Puliyel v. Union of India 2022
The Constitution of India, Art.21
K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) 10 SCC 1