Supreme Court Orders No‑Fault Compensation Policy for COVID‑19 Vaccine AEFIs – Implications for Public Health Governance

<h2>Overview</h2> <p>The <span class="key-term" data-definition="Supreme Court of India — the apex judicial body in India responsible for interpreting the Constitution and safeguarding fundamental rights (GS2: Polity)">Supreme Court</span> on <strong>10 March 2026</strong> directed the <span class="key-term" data-definition="Union Government — the central authority of India, comprising the President, Council of Ministers and various ministries (GS2: Polity)">Union government</span>, through the <span class="key-term" data-definition="Ministry of Health and Family Welfare (MoHFW) — the central ministry that formulates health policies, oversees public health programmes and regulates medical devices and vaccines (GS2: Polity)">Ministry of Health and Family Welfare</span>, to frame a <span class="key-term" data-definition="No‑fault compensation policy — a scheme that provides monetary relief to victims without establishing legal liability, often used in vaccine injury contexts (GS3: Governance)">no‑fault compensation policy</span> for serious <span class="key-term" data-definition="Adverse Events Following Immunisation (AEFI) — any untoward medical occurrence after vaccination, not necessarily causally linked to the vaccine (GS2: Polity)">AEFIs</span> linked to COVID‑19 vaccination.</p> <h3>Key Developments</h3> <ul> <li>The bench comprising <span class="key-term" data-definition="Justice Vikram Nath — a sitting judge of the Supreme Court, known for judgments on health and environmental law (GS2: Polity)">Justice Vikram Nath</span> and <span class="key-term" data-definition="Justice Sandeep Mehta — a Supreme Court judge who has dealt with public health litigation (GS2: Polity)">Justice Sandeep Mehta</span> issued the order following a petition by parents alleging vaccine‑related deaths.</li> <li>The Court reiterated the directions of the <span class="key-term" data-definition="Jacob Puliyel judgment (2022) — a Supreme Court ruling that mandated a virtual platform for reporting vaccine adverse events while protecting privacy (GS2: Polity)">Jacob Puliyel judgment</span>, urging the Centre to maintain a transparent reporting mechanism.</li> <li>The order clarified that a no‑fault framework does not imply admission of liability, preserving the government's legal position.</li> <li>The Court did not mandate the creation of an expert panel for scientific assessment of each case.</li> </ul> <h3>Important Facts from the Case</h3> <ul> <li>Petitioners: <strong>Rachna Gangu</strong> and <strong>Venugopalan Govindan</strong>, claiming their daughters (aged 18 and 20) died from severe brain clots post‑vaccination.</li> <li>Senior advocate <span class="key-term" data-definition="Colin Gonsalves — a noted public interest lawyer who frequently appears in health‑related litigations (GS2: Polity)">Colin Gonsalves</span> argued that vaccination was effectively compulsory and that information on adverse effects was suppressed.</li> <li>Government’s stance: Direct liability under strict liability for rare AEFI deaths is “legally unsustainable”.</li> <li>Vaccination data (as of 19 Nov 2022): <strong>219.86 crore</strong> doses administered; <strong>92,114 AEFI cases</strong> (0.0042%); <strong>2,782 serious AEFIs</strong> (0.00013%); <strong>1,171 deaths</strong> reported.</li> </ul> <h3>UPSC Relevance</h3> <p>1. <strong>Public health governance</strong>: The judgment underscores the role of the judiciary in shaping health policy, a recurring theme in GS2 (Polity) and GS4 (Ethics).<br> 2. <strong>Compensation mechanisms</strong>: Understanding no‑fault schemes aids in answering questions on social security and disaster management (GS3: Governance).<br> 3. <strong>Legal principles</strong>: The distinction between strict liability and no‑fault compensation is vital for law‑related questions in GS2. </p> <h3>Way Forward</h3> <ul> <li>Formulate a transparent, time‑bound <span class="key-term" data-definition="No‑fault compensation framework — a statutory scheme that provides financial relief to vaccine injury victims without proving negligence (GS3: Governance)">no‑fault compensation framework</span> under MoHFW, modeled on international best practices.</li> <li>Strengthen the existing AEFI surveillance system, ensuring periodic public disclosure of data as mandated by the <span class="key-term" data-definition="Jacob Puliyel judgment (2022) — Supreme Court directive for a virtual, privacy‑preserving adverse event reporting platform (GS2: Polity)">Jacob Puliyel</span> order.</li> <li>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.</li> <li>Enhance public communication to balance vaccine confidence with transparent reporting, addressing ethical concerns highlighted in the petition.</li> </ul>