Supreme Court Pushes ‘No-Fault’ Compensation Framework for Covid Vaccine Injuries

Why in News ?

The Supreme Court of India directed the Union government to formulate a “no-fault compensation” policy for individuals who suffered severe side-effects or died after receiving Covid-19 vaccines.

The Court observed that families of vaccine-injury victims should not be compelled to prove negligence in lengthy legal proceedings. Instead, the State must establish a structured compensation mechanism as part of its public health responsibility during the nationwide vaccination drive.

Background: Vaccine Injury Cases Before the Supreme Court

The case arose from petitions filed by families who lost young relatives aged between 18 and 40 years due to rare complications reported after vaccination with Covishield and Covaxin during 2021.

Some petitioners alleged that deaths were linked to rare blood clotting disorders, which were reported globally as extremely uncommon adverse reactions following certain vaccines.

Petitioners’ Arguments

1. Lack of Adequate Informed Consent

Petitioners argued that vaccine recipients were not sufficiently informed about potential risks associated with Covid-19 vaccines. They claimed that the vaccination programme did not adequately highlight rare adverse events.

2. Vaccination Was Effectively Mandatory

Although vaccination was officially voluntary, several administrative restrictions — such as travel rules, workplace policies, and entry restrictions in public places — allegedly made vaccination practically compulsory.

According to the petitioners, this indirectly infringed fundamental rights and placed citizens in a position where they had little practical choice but to vaccinate.

Government’s Defence

The Union government defended the vaccination programme, highlighting the following points:

1. Rigorous Safety and Regulatory Approval

Authorities emphasised that vaccines were approved after scientific trials and regulatory scrutiny, following emergency use authorisation procedures during the pandemic.

2. Rare Incidence of Vaccine-Related Deaths

The government stated that serious adverse reactions were extremely rare. Data presented suggested a reporting rate of approximately 0.001 cases per one lakh doses for specific clotting disorders.

3. Existing Legal Remedies

The government argued that affected families could approach civil courts or consumer courts to seek compensation from vaccine manufacturers if negligence could be proven.

Supreme Court’s Observations

The Court rejected the suggestion that families should pursue individual civil lawsuits.

It noted that vaccine injury cases involve complex medical and scientific evidence, making it extremely difficult for ordinary citizens to establish negligence.

The Bench also warned that forcing families into multiple individual court battles could result in:

• Unequal access to justice
• Inconsistent legal outcomes
• Delays in relief

Such outcomes, the Court said, could undermine the principle of equality under Article 14 of the Constitution.

No-Fault Liability and the Right to Health

• To address vaccine injury claims, the Court invoked the principle of “no-fault liability.”
• Under this approach, victims or their families receive compensation without the need to prove negligence or wrongdoing.
• This model recognises that some risks may arise from public welfare programmes even when no party is legally at fault.

Constitutional Basis under Article 21

The Court grounded its reasoning in Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty, including the right to health and bodily integrity.

It emphasised that the State cannot remain passive in the face of human suffering arising from a government-led public health programme.

Because the Covid vaccination drive was organised and promoted by the State, the government has a duty to support individuals who suffer serious adverse outcomes — even if those cases are rare.

Reference to Earlier Supreme Court Ruling

The Court clarified that its order does not question the scientific validity of Covid vaccines.

It referred to its earlier judgment in Jacob Puliyel vs Union of India, where the Court upheld:

• The vaccine approval process
• The functioning of the Adverse Events Following Immunisation (AEFI) monitoring system.

At the same time, the Court had recognised that bodily autonomy under Article 21 prevents forced vaccination, even though vaccination remains an important public health measure.

Adequacy of the AEFI Monitoring System

The Court stated that India’s existing Adverse Events Following Immunisation (AEFI) mechanism remains the appropriate framework for investigating vaccine-related complications.

Therefore, it declined the petitioners’ request to create a new expert medical board for vaccine injury investigations.

Instead, the Court emphasised that AEFI committees already possess the expertise and institutional capacity required to assess adverse events.

Directive to Formulate a Compensation Framework

The Court directed the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare to design and notify a no-fault compensation scheme for serious vaccine-related adverse events.

Key features expected in the framework include:

• A clear eligibility mechanism
• A transparent claims process
• Scientific verification through AEFI committees
• A defined compensation structure

Importantly, the Court clarified that the creation of such a scheme should not be interpreted as an admission of negligence or liability by the government.

Instead, it represents a welfare-based approach to public health governance.

Global Practice: Vaccine Injury Compensation Programmes

Many countries operate no-fault vaccine compensation schemes to maintain public trust in immunisation programmes.

Examples include:

• Australia
• United Kingdom
• Japan
• United States

Such programmes balance public health objectives with individual welfare, ensuring that rare adverse events do not leave affected families without support.

Supreme Court’s Earlier Intervention on Covid-19 Compensation

The Court’s approach mirrors its earlier intervention during the pandemic in Gaurav Kumar Bansal vs Union of India.

In that case, the Court directed the National Disaster Management Authority to frame guidelines for compensating families of Covid-19 victims.

NDMA Guidelines on Ex Gratia Compensation

Following the Court’s direction, the NDMA issued guidelines in September 2021 providing ₹50,000 ex-gratia compensation for each Covid-19 death.

Key features included:

• Payment through the State Disaster Response Fund (SDRF)
• Simplified application procedures
• District-level grievance committees to resolve disputes

Deaths occurring within 30 days of a positive Covid-19 test were treated as Covid deaths for compensation purposes.

Significance of the Supreme Court’s Direction

1. Strengthening Public Health Accountability

The decision reinforces the principle that large-scale public health programmes must include safety nets for rare adverse outcomes.

2. Protecting Citizens’ Right to Health

By linking vaccine injury compensation to Article 21, the Court expands the constitutional interpretation of the right to health and welfare.

3. Reducing Litigation Burden

A structured compensation scheme will avoid prolonged court battles, ensuring faster relief for affected families.

4. Maintaining Public Trust in Vaccination

Providing support to rare victims of vaccine injuries can increase transparency and public confidence in immunisation programmes.

5. Aligning India with Global Best Practices

The directive moves India closer to international standards for vaccine injury compensation frameworks.