The Supreme Court on Thursday expressed strong disapproval of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) raising concerns over the implementation of the Human Papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination programme for adolescent girls, particularly allegations relating to adverse effects and the absence of a compensation mechanism.

The Court cautioned against making claims about vaccines without adequate scientific research, observing that such assertions could undermine or derail a public health programme. The petition was thereafter withdrawn.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana was hearing a petition filed by Universal Health Organisation.

During the hearing, counsel appearing for the petitioner clarified that the petition was not intended to oppose vaccination. The counsel said the concerns were primarily about the manner in which the programme was being implemented, particularly the monitoring of adverse events and the absence of a compensation mechanism.

“I am not at all anti-vaccine,” counsel submitted, adding that adverse events following vaccination should be properly monitored and that there should be a mechanism to compensate affected individuals. The petitioner claimed that the vaccine could affect fertility.

At the outset itself, the bench expressed its disinclination to entertain the matter, and asked the counsel if he would like to withdraw the petition.

Justice Bagchi pointed out that the WHO itself had prescribed the vaccine, and asked why the petitioner, a group of doctors, was opposing it.

"WHO prescribes [HPV] vaccine for women. After that, I don't think doctors should come up with a petition. Wherever there's a case of incorrect vaccination, ordinary rules of compensation will apply. No special treatment for adverse impact in case of a particular vaccine."

The CJI said that the matter was pertaining to the health of millions. "Don't ask us to make harsh observations. If petitioner members are doctors, it's a very very serious issue. It's a question of health of millions of our daughters. And you want to derail this?" CJI observed.

When the counsel pressed the matter for arguing, the bench warned that it will make harsh observations against the petitioner. The bench stated that a public health program cannot be derailed, and pointed out that general rules of compensation will apply if there was an adverse effect.

The PIL had raised concerns over the implementation of the Centre's HPV vaccination programme, including informed consent, disclosure of risks, adverse-event monitoring and vaccine injury compensation. The petition had sought, among other measures, a transparent adverse-event reporting mechanism and a compensation framework.

The Centre's nationwide HPV vaccination programme was launched earlier this year with the aim of preventing cervical cancer, with adolescent girls among the principal beneficiaries.

Case: UNIVERSAL HEALTH ORGANISATION Vs UNION OF INDIA | D No. 37256/2026