Overview
The Supreme Court on 10 March 2026 directed the Union government, through the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, to frame a no‑fault compensation policy for serious AEFIs linked to COVID‑19 vaccination.
Key Developments
- The bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta issued the order following a petition by parents alleging vaccine‑related deaths.
- The Court reiterated the directions of the Jacob Puliyel judgment, urging the Centre to maintain a transparent reporting mechanism.
- The order clarified that a no‑fault framework does not imply admission of liability, preserving the government's legal position.
- The Court did not mandate the creation of an expert panel for scientific assessment of each case.
Important Facts from the Case
- Petitioners: Rachna Gangu and Venugopalan Govindan, claiming their daughters (aged 18 and 20) died from severe brain clots post‑vaccination.
- Senior advocate Colin Gonsalves argued that vaccination was effectively compulsory and that information on adverse effects was suppressed.
- Government’s stance: Direct liability under strict liability for rare AEFI deaths is “legally unsustainable”.
- Vaccination data (as of 19 Nov 2022): 219.86 crore doses administered; 92,114 AEFI cases (0.0042%); 2,782 serious AEFIs (0.00013%); 1,171 deaths reported.
Exam Relevance
1. Public health governance: The judgment underscores the role of the judiciary in shaping health policy, a recurring theme in GS2 (Polity) and GS4 (Ethics).
2. Compensation mechanisms: Understanding no‑fault schemes aids in answering questions on social security and disaster management (GS3: Governance).
3. Legal principles: The distinction between strict liability and no‑fault compensation is vital for law‑related questions in GS2.
Way Forward
- Formulate a transparent, time‑bound no‑fault compensation framework under MoHFW, modeled on international best practices.
- Strengthen the existing AEFI surveillance system, ensuring periodic public disclosure of data as mandated by the Jacob Puliyel order.
- Consider establishing an independent expert committee to periodically review serious AEFI cases, enhancing scientific credibility while respecting the Court’s restraint on mandating such a body.
- Enhance public communication to balance vaccine confidence with transparent reporting, addressing ethical concerns highlighted in the petition.