Key Facts and Data Points
- Supreme Court Order (13 Mar 2026): Union must formulate a no‑fault liability compensation policy for COVID‑19 vaccine adverse effects.
- Principle invoked: No‑fault liability – victims receive compensation without proving negligence.
- Constitutional basis: Articles 21 (Right to Life & Health) and 14 (Equality).
- Rare serious adverse events:
- Myocarditis/Pericarditis – linked to mRNA vaccines (Pfizer‑BioNTech, Moderna), predominantly in young males after the second dose.
- Thrombosis with Thrombocytopenia Syndrome (TTS) – linked to viral‑vector vaccines (AstraZeneca, Janssen).
- Incidence: Approximately 0.001 cases per 1 lakh doses for clotting disorders in India.
- Earlier SC judgments:
- Gaurav Kumar Bansal vs Union of India (2021) – NDMA to recommend ex‑gratia assistance of ₹50,000 per COVID death.
- Jacob Puliyel vs Union of India (2022) – Upheld AEFI monitoring and affirmed bodily integrity under Art. 21.
Background and Context
- India’s COVID‑19 vaccination drive, though officially voluntary, was effectively mandatory due to restrictions on unvaccinated individuals.
- Existing Adverse Events Following Immunisation (AEFI) committees monitor vaccine safety but do not provide compensation.
- Internationally, no‑fault schemes exist in Australia, United Kingdom, Japan, among others, to ensure uniform relief.
Significance for India / Governance / Policy
- Uniform redressal: Prevents multiplicity of individual lawsuits, ensuring equal access to relief.
- State’s positive duty: Aligns with the constitutional mandate that the State act as an active guardian of health.
- Financial implications: Requires allocation of funds, possibly from the State Disaster Response Fund (SDRF) or a dedicated Vaccine Injury Compensation Fund.
- Public confidence: Transparent compensation can enhance vaccine uptake and trust in public‑health programmes.
Related Constitutional / Legal Provisions
- Article 21: Right to life includes the right to health; obliges the State to protect citizens from health hazards.
- Article 14: Guarantees equality; a fragmented litigation system would violate equal protection.
- Consumer Protection Act, 2019: Provides a parallel avenue for negligence claims, but the SC’s order supersedes by offering a simpler route.
- Disaster Management Act, 2005: Basis for NDMA’s earlier ex‑gratia guidelines.
International Comparisons
| Country | Scheme Type | Funding Source |
|---|---|---|
| Australia | No‑fault Vaccine Injury Compensation Program | Federal budget |
| United Kingdom | Vaccine Damage Payment Scheme | Treasury |
| Japan | No‑fault compensation for vaccine injuries | Government health budget |
FAQs (Summarised)
- What is no‑fault liability? Compensation without proving fault.
- Which Articles were cited? Articles 21 and 14.
- What are the two rare serious adverse events? Myocarditis/pericarditis and TTS.
Prepared for UPSC Civil Services Examination – GS Paper 2 & 3.