Skip to main content
Back to Current Affairs
PolitySource: Indian Express

Supreme Court Directs Union Government to Establish Vaccine Adverse Effects Compensation Policy.

Friday, 13 March 2026
Read Original Article

Key Points

The Supreme Court has directed the Union Government to establish a compensation policy for individuals adversely affected by COVID-19 vaccinations. This decision underscores the importance of social justice and public health responsibilities, relevant to UPSC GS Paper 2 (Governance, Constitution, Polity, Social Justice). Last Updated: 13-03-2026

Key Facts About Supreme Court's Vaccine Compensation Directive

  • The Supreme Court invoked the no-fault liability principle, allowing victims to receive compensation without proving negligence.
  • This principle is part of Indian law and is used in countries like Australia, the United Kingdom, and Japan.
  • The Court rejected the idea of families seeking damages through civil or consumer courts, citing Article 14 of the Constitution.
  • Under Article 21, the State has a positive obligation to support those affected by the vaccination program.
  • Rare adverse effects, such as blood clotting disorders, occur at a rate of 0.001 per one lakh doses in India.
  • The existing Adverse Events Following Immunisation (AEFI) committees are deemed sufficient for monitoring.

India's Public Health Responsibility

The Supreme Court's directive highlights India's commitment to public health and social justice, aligning with the country's strategic goal of ensuring equitable healthcare access. This decision reflects India's broader objective to uphold citizens' rights and welfare, contributing to its global standing in human rights and public health management.

UPSC Relevance

  • GS Paper 2: Governance, Constitution, Polity, Social Justice - focusing on the State's role in public health and individual rights.
  • Prelims Angle: Questions may focus on the no-fault liability principle, Article 21, and the role of AEFI committees.
  • Mains Angle: Essays could explore themes of state responsibility in public health, the balance between individual rights and public safety, and judicial activism in social justice.

FAQ Section

  • What is the Supreme Court's directive on vaccine compensation? The Supreme Court has mandated the Union Government to establish a compensation policy for those adversely affected by COVID-19 vaccinations, based on the no-fault liability principle.
  • Why is this directive important? It emphasizes the State's responsibility to protect citizens' rights and ensure social justice, aligning with constitutional provisions.
  • What are the key features of the directive? Key features include the no-fault liability principle, the rejection of individual litigation, and the affirmation of the State's positive obligation under Article 21.

Detailed Coverage

  • Supreme Court's ruling on vaccine adverse effects compensation is a landmark decision.
  • Invoked the no-fault liability principle for financial relief to victims.
  • Dismissing individual litigation to prevent inconsistent outcomes.
  • Emphasized the State's positive obligation under Article 21 (Right to Life).
  • Stressed the need for fair compensation for rare adverse effects.
  • Declined to form a separate medical board, relying on existing AEFI committees.
  • Previous cases established guidelines for COVID-19 death assistance.
  • Common side effects include fatigue, headache, and fever.
  • Serious adverse effects like myocarditis are rare but monitored.
  • Myocarditis linked to mRNA vaccines, especially in young males.
  • Thrombosis with Thrombocytopenia Syndrome associated with viral vector vaccines.
  • Compensation policy does not imply liability from the Union government.
  • Focus on social justice and public health responsibilities.
  • Vaccination drive was effectively mandatory due to administrative restrictions.
  • District-level grievance redressal committees set up for disputes.
  • Supreme Court's decision aims to enhance public trust in vaccination efforts.
Polity

Practice Questions

Test your understanding of this article

Question 1 of 50 / 5 answered
1

In the landmark case of Jacob Puliyel vs. Union of India, the Supreme Court upheld the legality of the vaccination approval process while affirming the protection of bodily integrity under which constitutional article, thereby ensuring that individuals cannot be forcefully vaccinated?