Supreme Court Directs No‑Fault Compensation Framework for COVID‑19 Vaccine AEFI The Supreme Court on 10 March 2026 ordered the Union of India, through the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare , to frame a no‑fault compensation policy for individuals suffering serious adverse events after COVID‑19 vaccination. Key Developments Bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta issued the direction. The existing AEFI monitoring mechanism will continue unchanged. Periodic public disclosure of AEFI data was ordered, echoing observations from the 2021 Dr. Jacob Puliyel case . No separate court‑appointed expert body is required; the current surveillance framework suffices. The compensation policy does not imply liability on the Union Government and does not bar other legal remedies. Important Facts The judgment arose from two writ petitions: (i) Rachna Gangu & Anr v. Union of India , where petitioners claimed their daughters died due to vaccine‑related adverse effects, and (ii) Union of India v. Sayeeda K.A. , stemming from a Kerala High Court interim order seeking a compensation policy. The petitioners demanded both monetary compensation and the constitution of an expert committee to investigate vaccine safety. In 2022, the Union Government’s counter‑affidavit argued that vaccination was a voluntary, informed act, and therefore it could not be held liable for adverse outcomes. However, the Court clarified that a no‑fault scheme is a public‑health measure aimed at maintaining confidence in immunisation programmes, not an admission of negligence. Relevance for UPSC Understanding this development is crucial for multiple GS papers: GS 2 (Polity) : Illustrates judicial oversight of executive health policy, the role of writ petitions, and the principle of no‑fault compensation in public‑interest litigation. GS 3 (Health & Social Sector) : Highlights the AEFI surveillance system, the importance of transparent data for vaccine confidence, and the interplay between health governance and legal frameworks. GS 4 (Ethics) : Raises ethical questions about state responsibility, informed consent, and balancing individual rights with collective health security. Way Forward To operationalise the Court’s direction, the Ministry should: Draft a detailed no‑fault compensation scheme outlining eligibility, quantum of compensation, and claim procedures. Integrate the scheme with the existing AEFI reporting portal to ensure seamless data flow. Publish periodic AEFI statistics on a dedicated government website, ensuring transparency as mandated by the Dr. Jacob Puliyel precedent. Conduct awareness campaigns to inform the public about the compensation mechanism, thereby sustaining vaccine uptake. These steps will reinforce public trust, align India’s vaccine safety framework with international best practices, and provide a clear legal recourse for victims without protracted litigation.