The Supreme Court has ruled that when the government undertakes a mass vaccination drive as part of a public health mission, it cannot step away from responsibility if families claim serious harm or deaths linked to the programme. The Court observed that official records themselves acknowledge that some fatalities occurred after COVID-19 vaccination, making it necessary for the State to create a system through which affected families can seek relief.
Invoking the constitutional guarantee of the right to life under Article 21, the Court said the State carries a positive duty to ensure that people who allege grave harm during a State-driven health initiative are not left without any means to pursue compensation or accountability. According to the bench, the Constitution does not interpret the right to life merely in terms of identifying fault; it also requires the government to build mechanisms that address the consequences of large-scale public interventions.
A bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta directed the Union Government to design a no-fault compensation framework for individuals who suffered serious adverse events following COVID-19 vaccination. Such a model would allow families to claim compensation without having to prove negligence on the part of authorities.
The ruling came while hearing a group of petitions led by Rachana Gangu v Union of India, filed by families who alleged that their relatives died or developed severe medical conditions after receiving COVID-19 vaccines. The Court clarified that the proceedings were not aimed at questioning the scientific effectiveness of the vaccines or the process through which they were approved. Instead, the judges said the core issue was constitutional: whether people claiming harm during a government-led vaccination campaign should have access to a structured grievance and compensation mechanism.
While acknowledging that the nationwide vaccination campaign during the pandemic saved countless lives, the Court also noted that government data indicates that some deaths were reported after vaccination. In such circumstances, the State cannot simply distance itself from the consequences faced by certain individuals, the bench said. Families who lost loved ones, it added, must have a meaningful avenue to seek assistance or redress.
The case traces back to a petition filed by the parents of two young women who died after receiving COVID-19 vaccines. They sought the creation of an independent medical board to examine such deaths, clearer protocols for identifying adverse events following immunisation, and compensation for affected families.
Similar pleas had earlier reached the Kerala High Court, which directed authorities to frame a policy for identifying and compensating cases linked to vaccine-related adverse events. That interim direction was challenged by the Union Government, and several connected cases were later transferred to the Supreme Court.
During the hearings, petitioners argued that India’s vaccine governance framework lacked transparency and adequate monitoring after vaccination. They contended that although vaccination was described as voluntary, restrictions on travel and entry to public places effectively pressured citizens to get vaccinated.
They also cited global research that associated the vaccine platform used in Covishield with rare blood-clotting conditions and claimed that risk disclosures and detailed assessments of adverse events were not sufficiently published.
The Supreme Court, while refraining from assessing those scientific claims, focused on the broader constitutional principle: when the State leads a nationwide health intervention affecting millions, it must also ensure that those who claim harm are not left without a formal path to justice or compensation.
