JACOB PULIYEL versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation: [2022] 3 S.C.R. 471 · Decided: 02-05-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: L. NAGESWARA RAO · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · cites 15 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
471
   [2022] 3 S.C.R. 471
471
JACOB PULIYEL
v.
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
(Writ Petition (Civil) No. 607 of 2021)
MAY 02, 2022
[L. NAGESWARA RAO AND B. R. GAVAI, JJ.]
Public health – COVID-19 pandemic – Vaccines and other
public health measures – Fundamental rights of individuals – Bodily
integrity and personal autonomy of an individual – Held: Bodily
integrity is protected under Art. 21 of the Constitution and no
individual can be forced to be vaccinated – Further, personal
autonomy of an individual, which is a recognised facet of the
protections guaranteed under Art. 21, encompasses the right to
refuse to undergo any medical treatment in the sphere of individual
health – However, in the interest of protection of communitarian
health, the Government is entitled to regulate issues of public health
concern by imposing certain limitations on individual rights, which
are open to scrutiny by constitutional courts to assess whether such
invasion into an individual’s right to personal autonomy and right
to access means of livelihood meets the threefold requirement as
laid down in K.S. Puttaswamy case, i.e., (i) legality, which
presupposes the existence of law; (ii) need, defined in terms of a
legitimate State aim; and (iii) proportionality, which ensures a
rational nexus between the objects and the means adopted to achieve
them – Constitution of India, 1950 – Art. 21.
Public health – COVID-19 pandemic – Vaccines and other
public health measures – Vaccination policy – Restrictions on
unvaccinated individuals –Challenge to – Held: Substantial material
filed before the Court reflecting the near-unanimous views of experts
on benefits of vaccination in addressing severe disease from the
infection, reduction in oxygen requirement, hospital and ICU
admissions, mortality and stopping new variants from emerging –
Current vaccination policy of the Union of India is informed by
relevant considerations and cannot be said to be unreasonable or
manifestly arbitrary – However, no data placed by Union of India
or the States, controverting the material placed by the Petitioner in
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
472
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 3 S.C.R.
the form of emerging scientific opinion which appears to indicate
that the risk of transmission of the virus from unvaccinated
individuals is almost on par with that from vaccinated persons – In
light of this, restrictions on unvaccinated individuals imposed
through various vaccine mandates by State Governments / Union
Territories cannot be said to be proportionate – Till the infection
rate remains low and any new development or research finding
emerges which provides due justification to impose reasonable and
proportionate restrictions on the rights of unvaccinated individuals,
it is suggested that all authorities in this country, including private
organisations and educational institutions, review the relevant orders
and instructions imposing restrictions on unvaccinated individuals
in terms of access to public places, services and resources, if not
already recalled – It is however clarified that in the context of the
rapidly-evolving situation presented by the COVID-19 pandemic,
the suggestion to review the vaccine mandates imposed by States /
Union Territories, is limited to the present situation alone and is not
to be construed as interfering with the lawful exercise of power by
the executive to take suitable measures for prevention of infection
and transmission of the virus – The suggestion also does not extend
to any other directions requiring maintenance of COVID-appropriate
behaviour issued by the Union or the State Governments.
Public health – COVID-19 pandemic – Clinical trials of
vaccines – Non-disclosure of segregated clinical data – Held: The
results of Phase III clinical trials of the vaccines in question have
been published, in line with the requirement under the statutory
regime in place, Good Clinical Practices (GCP) guidelines and the
WHO Statement on Clinical Trials – Material provided by Union of
India, comprising of minutes of the meetings of the SEC, do not
warrant the conclusion that restricted emergency use approvals had
been granted to COVISHIELD and COVAXIN in haste, without
thorough review of the relevant data – Relevant information relating
to meetings of Subject Expert Committee (SEC) [the body which
sends recommendations to the Central Drugs Standard Control
Organisation] and National Technical Advisory Group on
Immunization (NTAGI) are available in public domain a

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.