State Not a Distant Spectator to Human Suffering: SC Orders No-Fault Compensation Policy for Covid Vaccine Adverse Events
Supreme Court of India
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Tuesday directed the Centre to frame a no-fault compensation policy for serious adverse events of Covid vaccination, saying the Constitution envisions the State as an active guardian of welfare and dignity and not a "distant spectator" to human suffering.
Observing that the Covid pandemic was an unprecedented period of suffering and disruption which brought grief and hardship to countless families, the apex court said the principle of no-fault liability was not alien to Indian law and even across the world in many jurisdictions, no-fault vaccine injury compensation scheme was a recognised feature of a welfare-state response.
A bench of justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta said during the pandemic, the State went above and beyond in order to create a vaccination scheme and the same undoubtedly helped save many lives.
"But at the same time, as the government data itself suggests, it cannot be brushed aside that the same vaccines also led to loss of life. In such a situation, it is not appropriate that the State shrugs its responsibility in coming to aid to those affected families who have lost their near and dear ones," the bench said.
It directed that existing mechanisms for monitoring adverse events following immunisation shall continue and relevant data be periodically placed in public domain in accordance with observations made by the top court in its May 2022 verdict in the Jacob Puliyel case.
The bench said no separate court-appointed expert body is considered necessary in view of existing mechanisms for scientific assessment of adverse events following immunisation.
"The Union of India shall, through the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, frame a no-fault compensation policy for serious adverse events following COVID-19 vaccination," it said.
The bench clarified that its judgment shall not preclude any person from pursuing such other remedies as may be available in law.
"Equally, the formulation of the no-fault framework shall not be construed as an admission of liability or fault on the part of the Union of India or any authority," it said.
The top court delivered its verdict on pleas, including the one which alleged that two women lost their lives in 2021 after taking the first dose of the Covishield vaccine.
The plea, while alleging that both of them suffered from severe adverse effects following immunisation, had also sought a direction to the authorities to grant monetary compensation to the petitioners which would be donated by them to organisations working on social issues.
In its verdict, the top court noted it was conscious that questions of public health, governance, vaccine approval and element of causality involve complex technical considerations, and that the constitutional courts must exercise appropriate restraint in domains entrusted exclusively for determination by the executive branch.
It said it was well settled that Article 21 of the Constitution was not limited to protection against unlawful deprivation of life, but also includes within its ambit a wide range of other rights that facilitate the smooth operation of right to life.
"This court has not shied away from upholding this constitutional idea and recognizing that the State bears a positive obligation to safeguard health of its people and ensure conditions necessary for meaningful enjoyment of life," it said.
The bench said it was neither adjudicating upon the vaccine efficacy nor sitting in scientific review over regulatory approval process.
It said Article 21 also embodies a positive obligation of the State to ensure that where grave harm is alleged to have occurred in the course of a State-led public health intervention, affected families are not left without any accessible mechanism of redress.
"The Constitution does not conceive of the State as a distant spectator to human suffering, but as an active guardian of welfare and dignity. The Directive Principles of State Policy illuminate this vision with clarity," the bench said.
It said vaccine injury claims raise questions where scientific attribution is often complex.
"To insist upon proof of negligence and fault in each case would impose an onerous burden upon affected families and would not be the best solution to those left affected," the bench said.
It referred to no-fault compensation scheme incorporating Covid vaccine in Australia, the United Kingdom and Japan.
It said immunisation was carried out on an unprecedented scale as a collective societal necessity during the pandemic.
"In such a situation, the State cannot be heard to say that those who experience serious adverse consequences must fend for themselves, without any clear or accessible avenue of relief," the bench said.
It noted the apex court has time and again reiterated that the executive, which has been democratically elected by the people of the country and is accountable for its actions to them, is vested with the competence and authority to draft policies.
"But at the same time, this constitutionally protected separation of powers cannot in any scenario come in the way of judiciary when the fundamental rights of its citizens are violated due to executive policies, or by lack of them, as in this case. In such circumstances, the constitutional duty of this court to safeguard the rights of citizens cannot be eclipsed," it said.
