'My Right To Not Be Infected Would Outweigh Other's Right Of Not Being Vaccinated': Solicitor General Submits Before Supreme Court In Vaccine Mandate Matter

The Supreme Court, on Monday, continued hearing submissions made by the Solicitor General of India, Mr. Tushar Mehta in the plea seeking directions to the Central Government to publicize the data pertaining to the clinical trials of the COVID-19 vaccines administered in India and their post vaccine efficacy as per the requirement of the International medical norms. Mr. Mehta primarily argued that an individual's personal liberty is not absolute and it is the duty of the court to reconcile competing interests by balancing the interests so involved. On the last date of hearing when Mr. Mehta commenced with his submissions, at the outset, he had questioned the bona fides of the petitioner. He contended that by way of a Public Interest Litigation, the petitioner cannot seek raw data of the clinical trial of the COVID-19 vaccines, merely to satisfy his curiosity, nor can he sit in judgment of the wisdom of the statutory bodies comprising domain experts. Thereafter, he took the Bench comprising Justices L. Nageswara Rao and B.R. Gavai through the relevant provisions of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act and the Drugs and Cosmetics Act and the New Drugs and Clinical Trials Rules 2019 to demonstrate the protocols of the vaccine approval process was followed by the Union Government. He further referred to Epidemic Disease Act, Disaster Management Act to indicate the wide scope of power granted to the Union Government by various statutes to take measures during a pandemic. Advocate, Mr. Prasant Bhushan appearing for the petitioner had argued non-disclosure of data is depriving the citizens from making informed consent. Addressing the issue of 'coercive' vaccine mandates imposed by Maharashtra, Madhya Pradesh, Delhi and Tamil Nadu, which is also under challenge in the said petition, he stated that the presence of the such mandates in an environment where the data pertaining to clinical trial is not available is violative of right to self-determination protected by Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Mr. Bhushan had also argued in favour of revamping the Adverse Events Following Immunization (AEFI), reporting system which, he claimed, lacked transparency. Another issue before the Bench was non-disclosure of clinical trial data for the vaccines that are being administered to children in India. While addressing the issue of the AEFI reporting system, Mr. Mehta had submitted that a robust mechanism was already in place and the same, he argued, was transparent. He controverted the evidence pertaining to vaccination for children stating that the nature of vaccine administered in India was completely different from the one that the petitioner had relied on to adduce evidence. On Monday, at the outset, Mr. Mehta refuted the petitioner's argument that the ingredient of the vaccine was unknown. "The argument of the petitioner was, that we are not aware what this vaccine is. I had shown that everything was in the public domain except for one document, which I could not point out, which is also in the public domain. I am showing for Covaxin, your lordships may take it that similar is available for Covishield. I'll not duplicate by reading two." He referred to the Counter Affidavit filed by him to argue that all information, including Qualitative and Quantitative Composition; pharmaceutical form; clinical particulars; therapeutic indications; contra-indication; special warning and precaution; Clinical Trial experience, which at the end says that related adverse events were observed; Immune response; Pharmacological properties; preclinical safety data was available in the public domain. He further stated that the Vaccine Vial Monitor was also being updated on a real-time basis. Mr. Mehta referred to a catena of foreign judgments relating to vaccination in general, and the vaccination during the COVID-19 pandemic in particular to indicate that individual liberty is not absolute and is subject to other factors. He emphasised that until and unless the decision taken by the State is manifestly arbitrary, unreasonable, ultra vires, it ought not to be inferred with. He referred to Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905), wherein the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) had upheld the authority of the State to enforce compulsory vaccination laws. "It seems to the court that an affirmative answer to these questions would practically strip the legislative department of its function to care for the public health and the public safety when endangered by epidemics of disease. Such an answer would mean that compulsory vaccination could not, in any conceivable case, be legally enforced in a community, even at the command of the legislature, however widespread the epidemic of smallpox, and however deep and universal was the belief of the community and of its medical advisers, that a system of general vaccination was vital to the safety...

'My Right To Not Be Infected Would Outweigh Other's Right Of Not Being Vaccinated': Solicitor General Submits Before Supreme Court In Vaccine Mandate Matter

Sohini Chowdhury

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Sohini Chowdhury

'My Right To Not Be Infected Would Outweigh Other's Right Of Not Being Vaccinated': Solicitor General Submits Before Supreme Court In Vaccine Mandate Matter

Sohini Chowdhury

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Sohini Chowdhury

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers