COVID-19: The Supreme Court affirms the freedom of individuals to refuse forced vaccination.

 COVID-19: The Supreme Court affirms the freedom of individuals to refuse forced vaccination

The Supreme Court maintains that Article 21 of the Constitution protects bodily autonomy and integrity.

The Supreme Court upheld both an individual's right against forcible vaccination and the government's current vaccination policy to protect communitarian health on Monday but found certain vaccine mandates imposed by state governments/Union Territories disproportionate, as they tend to deny unvaccinated individuals access to basic welfare measures and freedom of movement.

Such vaccination mandates withered in the face of "growing scientific judgment" that the danger of transmission of COVID-19 infection from unvaccinated individuals was nearly equal to that from vaccinated ones, according to a bench chaired by Justice L. Nageswara Rao.

'Create a public virtual platform'

The court ordered the Centre to establish a virtual public platform as soon as possible to allow individuals and private doctors to report bad vaccination reactions without jeopardizing their anonymity.

"Information on adverse events is critical for raising awareness about vaccines and their efficacy, as well as contributing to pandemic-related scientific studies... "There is a pressing need for statistics on adverse incidents and broader engagement," said Justice Rao, who also authored the decision.

Immunization policy for children

In a judgment, the Bench, which included Justice B.R. Gavai, held that India's pediatric vaccination policy against the COVID-19 virus was consistent with "global scientific consensus" and expert bodies such as the World Health Organization, the United Nations International Children's Emergency Fund, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The court stated that it did not wish to "second-guess" the expert judgments on which the government based its pediatric vaccination policy.

However, the court ordered the Union government to guarantee that, if not already done, the findings and outcomes of relevant phases of clinical studies of vaccinations previously licensed by regulatory bodies for administration to children are made public as soon as possible.

The government has already revealed segregated clinical data from phase three studies, according to the court.

The government's papers "do not support the notion that the emergency use authorization for Covishield and Covaxin vaccinations was provided in haste without sufficient evaluation of the evidence," the court said.

The court underlined that, subject to individual privacy protections, "all relevant data to be released under the legislative scheme must be made accessible to the public without undue delay" in existing and future proceedings.

"All relevant data to be released under the legislative scheme must be made available to the public without undue delay," the court said, subject to the preservation of individuals' privacy in existing and future proceedings.

The court could not be precluded from scrutinizing whether the policy was irrational, clearly arbitrary, and infringed on people's right to life, notwithstanding the government's broad leeway in framing public health policies based on expert medical opinion, the Bench held.

The court established a compromise between the individual right to bodily integrity and refusal of treatment and the government's public health concerns.

"In light of vaccinations and other public health measures implemented to cope with the COVID-19 epidemic, we are of the opinion that bodily integrity is guaranteed by Article 21 (right to life) of the Constitution, and no one can be forced to be vaccinated," the Supreme Court stated.

The court agreed that under Article 21, a person has the right to refuse treatment.

"Personal autonomy of an individual, which is a recognized feature of protection provided by Article 21," Justice Rao noted, "includes the freedom to decline any medical treatment in the domain of individual health."

'Community health' is a term that refers to the well-being of people

When the issue became "communitarian health," however, the government was "entitled to control concerns."

However, the government's power to regulate by limiting individual rights to preserve public health was also subject to court review.

Courts have the ability to determine whether the government's intrusions into an individual's personal autonomy and freedom to access means of livelihood fulfilled the "three-fold" conditions outlined in the K.S. Puttuswamy case by the Constitution Bench (the judgment which upheld the right of privacy as a constitutional right under Article 21).Whether the validity of the government's restrictions on individual rights entails the existence of a law is one of the three conditions. That is, the restrictions should be backed up by a specific piece of legislation.

Second, constraints should be commensurate to a valid government goal.

Finally, there should be a reasonable connection between the state's goals for imposing limits and the methods used to attain them.

The court found that the present vaccination program of the Union government satisfied the standards and "cannot be considered to be irrational and clearly arbitrary."

The policy reflected "near-unanimous expert opinions on the benefits of vaccination in addressing severe illness, oxygen requirements, hospital and ICU admissions, mortality rate, and preventing the emergence of novel variations," according to the statement.

"In the context of the rapidly evolving situation presented by the pandemic, our suggestion to review the vaccine mandates imposed by the States/Union Territories is related to the current situation alone and should not be construed as an interference in the executive's lawful exercise of power to take appropriate measures against the spread of infection," the Bench said.

The ruling came after Dr. Puliyel argued that some vaccine mandates issued by states, such as those that made vaccination a requirement for receiving any benefits or services, were unlawful and violated residents' rights.