Skip to main content
Loading page, please wait…
HomeCurrent AffairsEditorialsGovt SchemesLearning ResourcesUPSC SyllabusPricingAboutUPSC AI ToolsUPSC AI ToolAI for UPSCUPSC ChatGPT

© 2026 Vaidra. All rights reserved.

PrivacyTerms
Vaidra Logo
Vaidra

Top 7 items + smart groups

UPSC GPT
New
Mains Evaluator
Test Generator
Geography Lab
New
Current Affairs
Daily Solutions
Daily Puzzle

Version 2.0.0 • Built with ❤️ for UPSC aspirants

Loading...
Loading...
Loading...
Loading...
Loading...
Loading...
Loading...
Loading...
Loading...
Loading...
Loading...
Loading...
Loading...
Loading...
Loading...
Loading...
Loading...
Loading...
Loading...
Loading...
Loading...
Loading...
Loading...
Loading...
Loading...
Loading...
Loading...
Loading...

Supreme Court Orders No‑Fault Compensation Policy for COVID‑19 Vaccine Adverse Events

The Supreme Court, via a bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta, ordered the Union to formulate a no‑fault compensation policy for serious adverse events following COVID‑19 vaccination, while retaining the existing AEFI monitoring system. The directive emphasizes transparency of adverse‑event data and clarifie…
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.
Loading article...

Quick Reference

Key Insight

Supreme Court mandates no‑fault compensation for COVID‑19 vaccine AEFI to safeguard public‑health confidence

Key Facts

  1. 10 March 2026: SC bench (Justices Vikram Nath & Sandeep Mehta) ordered the Union to frame a no‑fault compensation scheme for serious COVID‑19 vaccine adverse events.
  2. The order stemmed from two writ petitions – Rachna Gangu & Anr v. Union of India and Union of India v. Sayeeda K.A.
  3. Existing AEFI monitoring mechanism remains unchanged; the Court mandated periodic public disclosure of AEFI data, recalling the 2021 Dr. Jacob Puliyel judgment.
  4. No separate expert committee is required; the compensation scheme does not imply liability of the Union Government.
  5. The scheme provides monetary relief without proving negligence, aiming to boost vaccine confidence and align with international best practices.
  6. The Ministry of Health and Family Welfare must draft eligibility criteria, quantum of compensation, and claim procedures.
  7. The judgment underscores judicial oversight of health policy under Article 32 of the Constitution.

Background

Adverse Events Following Immunisation (AEFI) are monitored to ensure vaccine safety, but public apprehension persists without clear redressal mechanisms. By directing a no‑fault compensation policy, the Supreme Court exercised judicial activism to reinforce public‑health governance, linking constitutional rights to health security.

UPSC Syllabus

  • GS2 — Government policies and interventions for development
  • Prelims_GS — Constitution and Political System
  • Prelims_GS — National Current Affairs
  • Prelims_CSAT — Decision Making
  • Essay — Youth, Health and Welfare
  • GS2 — Executive and Judiciary - structure, organization and functioning
  • GS2 — Functions and responsibilities of Union and States
  • Prelims_GS — Biology and Health
  • Prelims_GS — Demographics and Social Sector

Mains Angle

GS 3 (Health & Social Sector) – Discuss the impact of judicial interventions on health policy formulation, using the SC’s 2026 no‑fault compensation order as a case study.

Explore:Current Affairs·Editorial Analysis·Govt Schemes·Study Materials·Previous Year Questions·UPSC GPT
  1. Home
  2. Prepare
  3. Current Affairs
  4. Politics
  5. Legislation & Institutional Governance
  6. Supreme Court Orders No‑Fault Compensation Policy for COVID‑19 Vaccine Adverse Events
GS374% Exam RelevanceLegislation & Institutional Governance
Prelims
62%
Mains
80%
Login to bookmark articles
Login to mark articles as complete

Overview

Full Article

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:

  1. Draft a detailed no‑fault compensation scheme outlining eligibility, quantum of compensation, and claim procedures.
  2. Integrate the scheme with the existing AEFI reporting portal to ensure seamless data flow.
  3. Publish periodic AEFI statistics on a dedicated government website, ensuring transparency as mandated by the Dr. Jacob Puliyel precedent.
  4. 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.

Read Original on livelaw

Supreme Court mandates no‑fault compensation for COVID‑19 vaccine AEFI to safeguard public‑health confidence

Key Facts

  1. 10 March 2026: SC bench (Justices Vikram Nath & Sandeep Mehta) ordered the Union to frame a no‑fault compensation scheme for serious COVID‑19 vaccine adverse events.
  2. The order stemmed from two writ petitions – Rachna Gangu & Anr v. Union of India and Union of India v. Sayeeda K.A.
  3. Existing AEFI monitoring mechanism remains unchanged; the Court mandated periodic public disclosure of AEFI data, recalling the 2021 Dr. Jacob Puliyel judgment.
  4. No separate expert committee is required; the compensation scheme does not imply liability of the Union Government.
  5. The scheme provides monetary relief without proving negligence, aiming to boost vaccine confidence and align with international best practices.
  6. The Ministry of Health and Family Welfare must draft eligibility criteria, quantum of compensation, and claim procedures.
  7. The judgment underscores judicial oversight of health policy under Article 32 of the Constitution.

Background & Context

Adverse Events Following Immunisation (AEFI) are monitored to ensure vaccine safety, but public apprehension persists without clear redressal mechanisms. By directing a no‑fault compensation policy, the Supreme Court exercised judicial activism to reinforce public‑health governance, linking constitutional rights to health security.

UPSC Syllabus Connections

GS2•Government policies and interventions for developmentPrelims_GS•Constitution and Political SystemPrelims_GS•National Current AffairsPrelims_CSAT•Decision MakingEssay•Youth, Health and WelfareGS2•Executive and Judiciary - structure, organization and functioningGS2•Functions and responsibilities of Union and StatesPrelims_GS•Biology and HealthPrelims_GS•Demographics and Social Sector

Mains Answer Angle

GS 3 (Health & Social Sector) – Discuss the impact of judicial interventions on health policy formulation, using the SC’s 2026 no‑fault compensation order as a case study.

Analysis

Related PYQs

No related PYQs linked to this article yet.

Practice Questions

Prelims
Medium
Prelims MCQ

Judicial intervention in health policy

1 marks
5 keywords
GS3
Easy
Mains Short Answer

Health policy formulation

10 marks
5 keywords
GS3
Hard
Mains Essay

Judicial activism and health governance

25 marks
6 keywords
Related:Daily•Weekly

Loading related articles...

Loading related articles...

Tip: Click articles above to read more from the same date, or use the back button to see all articles.

Supreme Court Orders No‑Fault Compensation... | UPSC Current Affairs

Related Topics

  • 📖Glossary TermFundamental Rights