Supreme Court Reserves Judgment On Plea Seeking Govt Compensation For Covid Vaccine Deaths

The Supreme Court on Thursday reserved judgment on petitions seeking compensation from the Union Government for the deaths allegedly caused due to Covid-19 vaccines. The petitioners also sought constitution of an expert committee to inquire into the adverse effects of Covid vaccination.

A bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta heard the writ petition filed by Rachna Gangu and Venugopalan Govindan who alleged that their daughters died due to adverse effects caused by the Covid vaccine. The other petition was filed by the Union Government against an interim order passed by the Kerala High Court in a petition filed by Sayeeda KA (who alleged that her husband died due to vaccination) to formulate a policy for compensation.

In 2022, the Union Government had filed a counter-affidavit in the matter, arguing that it was not liable to compensate as vaccination was a voluntary act undertaken by persons who took an informed decision on the basis of the risks notified.

Today, Senior Advocate Colin Gonsalves, for the petitioners, submitted that an amendment application had also been filed seeking an independent inquiry into vaccine-related adverse events and alleging systemic suppression of data during the COVID-19 vaccination drive.

Gonsalves narrated the medical history of the petitioners' daughters, aged 18 and 20 years, stating that one developed severe brain clots and was declared brain dead despite treatment at a top hospital. He told the Court that an autopsy was conducted, yet the report was allegedly not given to the family despite repeated requests.

Regarding the second daughter, he said she experienced acute body pain soon after vaccination, was allegedly put on an incorrect treatment regime, later shifted to the ICU, and died within days. He added that the family wrote to the Serum Institute of India, which responded that the case could be related to MIS-C or COVID-19 and not the vaccine.

Justice Nath asked the petitioners to clarify the nature of the amendments sought.

Gonsalves replied that during the four years since the petition was filed, they came across hundreds of parents reporting similar deaths. He said the amended petition contained 40 to 50 case studies, asserting a larger failure in adverse event reporting.

He further submitted that the petition raised serious concerns about the government's refusal to furnish adverse event data and the lack of transparency around vaccine effects.

The Union government strongly opposed the amendment, arguing that issues regarding authorization, safety and reporting mechanisms had already been adjudicated in the 2022 judgment in Dr Jacob Puliyel v. Union of India.

The government argued that the petition, initially filed on individual grievances, was now being expanded into a generalised challenge to the national vaccine programme.

Advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for intervenors, supported the demand for an independent investigation into serious adverse events. He submitted that the Jacob case addressed voluntariness for vaccination and reporting processes but did not address whether independent experts should examine potential adverse effects of COVID vaccines.

You don't trust Indian Govt data? Court asks petitioners

The Bench repeatedly asked Gonsalves for empirical basis for the allegation that about 33,000 deaths in India were vaccine-related.

Justice Nath questioned the reliance on foreign data and asked how UK figures could be applied to the Indian context. "You assume your country has not given data transparently, but UK has? You trust data uploaded by UK government? And you don't trust data of this government?" Justice Nath asked.

Gonsalves said India's numbers were alarmingly low and that only an independent expert committee could reconcile the discrepancy. He said the petition is supported by affidavits of doctors and several case studies from families across the country.

"I don't want to say I don't trust Indian data. But what we know is - figure is alarmingly low. Even doctors have filed affidavits. What's done is done. But alarmingly large no. of persons have escaped the net. It's worthy of investigation by a team independent of the government. No point in trust, no trust. Parents' petition is backed up by cardiologists and others, who gave us data. Plus, guidelines are required. If a person collapses and dies shortly after taking the vaccine, it must be investigated. How the people tried desperately to get the govt to respond on their children's deaths...there are about 77 case studies of parents and children...govt's answer was vaccines are 110% safe. We want an expert group to tell the country the truth," he said.

Government defends vaccination policy and AEFI mechanism

Appearing for the Union, ASG Aishwarya Bhati detailed India's adverse event reporting data:

Total doses administered in India: 220 crores

Total AEFI cases reported: 92,687 (0.0042 percent)

TTS cases: 50

She said each reported case was examined by expert committees and that India's surveillance mechanism had been appreciated at the global level. "TTS is a known side effect of the vaccine. Very unfortunate case, but those were unfortunate times. We tried to do what we could. Daughter of petitioner No.2 - diagnosis is MIS...insufficient definite evidence for linking to vaccine," ASG said.

"World and nation went through a very bad period. There are side effects, but they are known to experts. Millions lives were saved by vaccines," added the ASG emphasizing that the Indian protocol was appreciated on a global level.

She further argued that vaccines were never compulsory in India and that the government only persuaded citizens to vaccinate. A person could refuse vaccination but not insist on entering public spaces without complying with health and safety norms.

"On voluntary vaccination, I think petitioners have not looked at China to understand what 'compulsory' means. Vaccines have saved lives. There is medical literature available. In first wave, when vaccines were not there, the number of deaths were mind boggling. But India followed a system of voluntary vaccination. We persuaded citizens to vaccinate. A person can say no to vaccine but not that l will not take vaccine and still go to public places," ASG submitted.

Gonsalves countered that although officially voluntary, vaccination was practically compulsory due to restrictions imposed by employers, schools and establishments. He also alleged lack of transparency in publicizing adverse events and clinical trial data. It was further submitted that several perfectly healthy individuals died shortly after receiving the vaccine and that their families received no answers from authorities.

After extensive arguments, Justice Nath said that the Court would consider all submissions and decide on the amendment as well as the larger issues raised. "We will decide if a committee is to be formed, what directions to be issued...we will examine everything in great detail," Justice Nath said, reserving orders.

Case Title : Rachana Gangu & Anr vs. Union of India & Ors. – WP (C) No. 1220/2021, UNION OF INDIA v.SAYEEDA K.A. & ORS|Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 16452/2023 and connected matters.