JACOB PULIYEL V. UNION OF INDIA

MISS VAISHNAVI KRUSHNA PARATE[1]

NAME OF THE CASE         JACOB PULIYEL V. UNION OF INDIA  
CITATION  WP(C) 607 OF 2021
DATE OF THE CASE2ND MAY 2022
PETITIONERJACOB PULIYEL
RESPONDENTUNION OF INDIA
BENCH/JUDGES      L NAGESWARA RAO AND MR. BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVA
STATUTES/CONSTITUTION          THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
IMPORTANT SECTIONS/ARTICLES        ARTICLE 21 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

ABSTRACT

The COVID-19 pandemic left very drastic effects on every country of the globe.  India is not exempt from the effects of the same, which has inflicted havoc on the entire planet. India has been among the pandemic’s worst-affected nations with over 18 million confirmed cases and over 200,000 fatalities.[2] The government made sure that every citizen must be vaccinated for their health concerns. Vaccination is mandatory as a disease prevention measure. The government has made vaccination mandatory to ensure that a larger section of the populace is protected against the virus. This is especially important because India’s healthcare infrastructure is less advanced than that of other nations. “Mass vaccination is essential for preventing the issues caused by the virus and from becoming overworked in a population of over 1.3 billion.”[3]

INTRODUCTION

The health of every individual is a major issue for not only a person but also the whole country. In the constitution of India under Article 21 every citizen has been given the right to life. Even under many provisions, there are restrictions imposed as subject to public health and peace. In the given case when India was suffering from the virus attack the government of India was taking all the preventive measures and doing their best to protect people from any kind of disease. On May 2, 2022, the Supreme Court of India rendered a decision in the case of Jacob Puliyel v. Union of India.[4] The case centred on several aspects of India’s immunisation practises, including the dissemination of clinical trial data, the veracity of emergency vaccine approvals, and the reporting of unfavourable vaccination effects.[5]  However, “the question of mandatory vaccination of individuals was brought up in a case before the Supreme Court in the form of a writ petition. The protection of individual rights is discussed.”

FACTS OF THE CASE

  • Mr Jacob Puliyel, a former member of the National Advisory Technical Group. He filed the public interest litigation before the Hon’ble supreme court. He asked to disclose the data related to trials of the vaccines and also mentioned that compelling vaccination to the citizens is unfair and unconstitutional.[6]
  • Further he contends, the unfavourable effects of India’s emergency vaccine approval, the requirement for transparency when disaggregated clinical trial data for vaccinations are published, the Lack of openness in the regulatory approval process, the expert bodies’ minutes and bylaws, Adverse Events Following Immunisation (AEFIs) (vi) poor evaluation, this is unconstitutional to require vaccinations in the absence of informed consent.[7]
  • In this case the petitioner wants to know, if is vaccination necessary for all or if it is just an exercise of arbitrary power of the government. He requested all the main authorities who are connected with this procedure to provide him with all the details about vaccines.

ISSUES

  1. Are the vaccination requirements in violation of Article 21 of the Indian Constitution?
  2. Does the public have access to the separate clinical trial data?
  3. Were Adverse Events Following Immunisation (AEFIs) improperly collected and reported?
  4. Whether immunisation is safe for children?

ARGUMENTS OF PETITIONER

  • The petitioner in this case claimed that the vaccination requirements imposed by the Indian government and several state governments were unlawful and coercive.
  • Petitioner further stated that vaccines were ineffective against some varieties and may still be spread by both vaccinated and unprotected people & the natural immunity gained after catching COVID-19 was more effective than vaccines.[8]
  • It was also contended by the petitioner that vaccination requirements were put in place for the benefit of the general public and were frequently updated in response to how the pandemic was progressing.
  • The petitioner claimed that the government lacked a sufficient procedure for reporting adverse events and deaths that occurred after patients got Covid-19 vaccines. The Union of India countered that they adhered to established processes for tracking the negative side effects of vaccinations and that the COWIN portal included tools for reporting any such occurrences.[10] The Court discovered that there was a clear procedure in place for gathering information on unfavorable incidents, including reports from private medical professionals.[11]  According to the petitioner, there may be more risks associated with vaccine administration for youngsters than advantages, and young people have been known to experience negative reactions. Petitioner also pointed that lot of kids have already grown immunity to COVID-19.

ARGUMENTS OF RESPONDENT[13]

  • Union of India (UOI), the respondent, argued that judicial review should not be used to influence the judgements made by domain specialists concerning vaccinations and related practises. In addition, the UOI argued that the Petitioner’s concerns could exacerbate already present vaccine reluctance in the nation.
  • The UOI argued that in delicate public health situations like the Covid-19 pandemic and related immunisation, the Court should follow governmental decisions made in light of expert opinion and advice.
  • The UOI said that while the vaccinations are both safe and effective, any discussion of them will only spread the nation’s already widespread vaccine hesitancy. Additionally, it was asserted that the issuance of vaccination emergency authorizations and any accompanying clinical trials all take place within the boundaries of the nation’s legal system.
  • The UOI argued that strict adherence to the National Adverse Event Following Immunisation Surveillance Guidelines was required for the monitoring of adverse events following immunisation. The UOI further said that the COWIN portal had set up procedures for reporting all AEFIs. A team of certified topic experts performs timely reviews, analyses, and causality assessments on all cases of severe AEFIs, including reported deaths. It was made clear that until demonstrated otherwise by a causality evaluation analysis, the mere reporting of an AEFI case should not be used to blame the vaccine.

JUDGEMENT

The court found that no one can be forced to receive immunisations by Article 21[14] of the Indian Constitution, which protects bodily freedom. People have the freedom to decide whether or not they want to get immunised, as well as the freedom to do anything they choose with their lives and the right to refuse medical treatment. If a person chooses not to get vaccinated, no one can make them. Furthermore, it was found that the government’s restrictions are necessary considering how difficult it will be to control occurrences in such open spaces. Within a year of the conclusion of the study, it was decided that clinical trial results should be publicised and made available to the public. It must be openly available and cost nothing.

The court determined that the government’s vaccination campaign was appropriate in the interest of public health notwithstanding the virus’s dynamic character. However, it also ruled that because Article 21 [15] protects bodily integrity, citizens cannot be coerced into receiving vaccinations. The court suggested that if there is evidence that unvaccinated people may spread the infection and harm public health, restriction measures may be imposed on them. Additionally, the court advised that all authorities reassess their vaccination requirements and make sure that any limits are reasonable given the COVID-19 scenario.[16] When deciding whether or not to get immunized, the public will be well-informed and knowledgeable since they will have access to all meeting information that is related to the public domain.

Regarding the third issue, the Court has provided detailed instructions on how to monitor, evaluate, and notify the appropriate authorities of the occurrence of AEF. The Court ensured that the AFI system would not jeopardise the quick review and assessment procedure in operation at the national level. The Union of India is required to make it easier for patients and private doctors to report alleged adverse effects online.[17]

These reports must be made public after receiving individual identification numbers and not include any private or sensitive information about the people who made them. The government shall take all necessary measures to ensure that this self-reporting mechanism is known and understood from the start of vaccination administration, including hiring and training the essential parties. The Court is unable to decide the security of vaccines and related services, it was decided. “It was determined that the paediatric vaccination complied with the recommendations of other agencies, including WHO and UNICEF, as well as with the general body of scientific knowledge.”[18]

RATIO DECIDENDI

The government has the power to take reasonable actions to preserve the public’s health, including requiring vaccination in some circumstances, the court ruled. Although the safety and efficacy of vaccines are a matter of scientific debate, the government has the right to do so. “The court supported the government’s decision to require COVID-19 immunisation for select groups, including frontline workers and healthcare professionals, as being within its powers and not violating any fundamental rights.”[19]

The court emphasised the necessity of obtaining agreement from patients before giving vaccines, as well as the necessity of ensuring that people are properly educated about the risks and advantages of vaccination. The court dismissed the writ petitioner, ruling that no one can be forced to have a vaccination and that the restrictions put in place on people were not arbitrary.[20] The public’s health was the main reason the restrictions were placed in place. The outcomes of the trials ought to be made public while yet respecting each person’s right to privacy. The court had no control over the safety of the immunisations because the vaccination corresponds with the scientific consensus.

The court denied the petitioner’s alleged Writ Petition.

Here, it’s crucial to remember that the Court made a particularly thorough comment on personal autonomy and reaffirmed the idea that such autonomy should be respected and that any mandate to the contrary must be well-founded and reasonable.[21] This case highlights the current court opinion that any arbitrary interference with personal autonomy would be judged illegal and, to that extent, executive decisions will be subject to judicial review even if they are made about important public concerns. Having said so, it must be emphasised that the court considered both the circumstances of the past and the present while making its observations.[22]

CONCLUSION

The court denied the petitioner’s alleged Writ Petition. No one may be forced to have the vaccination, and the government’s present vaccination policy addressing the limitations placed on people is not arbitrary. The government has the power to impose limits on people’s right to bodily autonomy while still protecting the general welfare. The Court ruled that as long as the number of cases is minimal, there should be no barriers preventing people from entering public spaces, and if there are any, they should be removed right away. All information gathered throughout the COVID vaccination trials, including information about upcoming tests, should be made public while still respecting peoples’ right to privacy. The decision of the court was totally in favour of public health and safety. It is the responsibility of the government to take such strict decisions or preventive steps in the pandemic situation for the betterment of the people. Even if sometimes prima facie it deems that such rules or regulations are violating the fundamental rights of an individual but after giving it a second thought or after a deep study a person gets to know the approach and protocols behind such decisions.

[1] LLB 6TH SEM STUDENT AT SHRI NATHMAL GOENKA LAW COLLEGE, AKOLA MAHARASHTRA

[2] ‘Coercive Vaccination! Explaining the Jacob Puliyel v. Union of India Case | India Corporate Law’ <https://corporate.cyrilamarchandblogs.com/2022/05/coercive-vaccination-explaining-the-jacob-puliyel-v-union-of-india-case/> accessed 18 June 2023.

[3] Ibid.

[4] ‘Jacob Puliyel vs Union Of India on 2 May, 2022’ <https://indiankanoon.org/doc/17990001/> accessed 18 June 2023.

[5] ‘JACOB PULIYEL VS UNION OF INDIA’ (The Amikus Qriae, 29 September 2022) <https://theamikusqriae.com/jacob-puliyel-vs-union-of-india/> accessed 18 June 2023.

[6] Ibid.

[7] Indian Legal Solution, ‘Case Analysis: – Jacob Puliyel v. Union of India’ (Indian Legal Solution, 30 April 2023) <https://indianlegalsolution.com/jacob-puliyel-v-union-of-india/> accessed 18 June 2023.

[8] Ibid.

[9] Khaitan & Co, ‘Https://Www.Khaitanco.Com/Thought-Leaderships/Supreme-Courts-No-Mandatory-Vaccination-Mandate-What-It-Means-for-Employers’ (Khaitan & Co) <https://www.khaitanco.com/thought-leaderships/Supreme-Courts-no-mandatory-vaccination-mandate-what-it-means-for-employers> accessed 18 June 2023.

[10] Jacob Puliyel, ‘IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION’.

[11] Ibid.

[12] ‘JACOB PULIYEL VS UNION OF INDIA’ (n 5).

[13] Jacob Puliyel, ‘IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION’.

[14] ‘Article 21 in The Constitution Of India 1949’ <https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1199182/> accessed 5 June 2023.

[15] ibid.

[16] ‘Coercive Vaccination! Explaining the Jacob Puliyel v. Union of India Case | India Corporate Law’ (n 2).

[17] ‘Jacob Puliyel vs Union Of India on 2 May, 2022’ (n 4).

[18] Ibid.

[19] Solution (n 7).

[20] ‘Coercive Vaccination! Explaining the Jacob Puliyel v. Union of India Case | India Corporate Law’ (n 2).

[21] Puliyel (n 15).

[22] Ibid.

Tags: , , , , , , ,