Supreme Court Says Centre Can Respond To Plea Seeking Direction To Specify Side Effects Of Covishield Vaccine

The Supreme Court on December 10 said the Union Government may file its response to an amendment application seeking that possible adverse effects of Oxford–AstraZeneca's Covishield should be specified in the vaccines including the treatment for those effects. A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and PB Varale was hearing the amendnment application in the pending writ petition filed by a mother of two daughters who died allegedly after receiving dose of Covishield COVID-19 vaccine. The writ petition states that after taking the vaccination, the deceased girls suffered from severe Adverse Effects Following Immunization ('AEFI').Petitioners had made representations to the authorities concerned which had not been adequately replied. The only response to petitioner No. 2 by the Senior Manager, Clinical Research and Pharmacovigilance Department, Serum Institute of India Pvt. Ltd., Pune had been that the Covid-19 infection was considered as the cause of Multisystem Inflammatory Syndrome; that Covishield does not contain SARSCoV-2 virus and cannot cause Covid-19 infection; and that vaccine is not known to cause Multisystem Inflammatory Syndrome. Notice on the SLP was issued on August 29, 2022.Senior Advocate Colin Gonsalves at the outset stated that he has moved an application seeking amendment of the relief clause. The amendments sought are: 1. All communications of the Government must specify that the vaccines are voluntary. 2. It must specify the possible adverse effects and treatments for those effects. 3. Suggestions from the Medical Board.Opposing this, Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati responded: "Mylords looked into the entire issue of COVID vaccination, which was disposed of by a reported judgment which deals with the aspect of AEFI. That has also been dealt with...Side-effects which are there are notified by the Drug companies in the vaccination itself. It is ultimately a question of balancing the equities. COVID was a disaster like no other. More than 5 crore, 33 lac people lost their lives due to COVID."To this, Gonsalves stating that the same cannot be contested, added that Covishield vaccines around Europe were discontinued. He said: "Across the world, this vaccine in 2021 was discontinued in all the European countries because it was dangerous. Clots in the brain, heart and abdomen were found. Unique to this particular vaccine. At the time when entire world discontinued this vaccine, after reports came in 2021..."Bhati added: "COVID vaccinations, it has saved lives..."Gonsalves responded that this remains undisputed but he added: "All I am saying is, it also caused the other problem, the adverse effects." When Bhati remarked: "Even headache medicine has adverse effects," Gonsalves concluded: "Government said, this is 110% safe. That is the mistake made."Justice Nath orally remarked: "These are all luxury litigations".The Court did not pass any other in respect to the application as the same was not on record. He added that instead of an Article 32 petition, a compensation claim should have been made. He said: "Since this Court has entertained it, we will have to decide it."The Court ordered that the application be traced and a copy of that should be shared with ASG. Thereafter, the Union may file a response within 4 weeks. The petitioner prayed for the following reliefs in the writ petition:1. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction appointing an expert medical board, independent of the Government, to forthwith inquire into and investigate into the deaths of the daughters of Petitioners No. 1 & 2, and to share the report of the autopsy and investigation with the petitioners in a time-bound manner;2. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the above-appointed expert medical board to prepare a protocol for early detection of and timely treatment for the AEFI due to the Covid-19 vaccine such as the ones that led to the deaths of the daughters of Petitioners No. 1 & 2; and 3. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the Respondents to grant significant monetary compensation to the Petitioners No. 1 & 2, which will be donated by the Petitioners to organizations working on social issues.” Case Details: RACHANA GANGU AND ANR. v UNION OF INDIA AND ORS., W.P.(C) No. 1220/2021Appearances: Senior Advocate Colin Gonsalves and Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya BhatiClick Here To Read Order

Supreme Court Says Centre Can Respond To Plea Seeking Direction To Specify Side Effects Of Covishield Vaccine

Gursimran Kaur Bakshi

Tags