No-Fault Compensation Framework for COVID-19 Vaccine Injuries: Supreme Court's Directive
Rachana Gangu & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.
Listen to this judgment
• 5 min read
Key Takeaways
• The Supreme Court recognized the need for a no-fault compensation framework for COVID-19 vaccine injuries.
• The absence of a structured compensation policy raises constitutional concerns under Article 21.
• The Court emphasized the State's positive obligation to safeguard public health and provide redress for vaccine-related injuries.
• Existing mechanisms for monitoring adverse events following immunization were deemed adequate.
• The ruling underscores the importance of transparency and informed consent in vaccination programs.
• The Court clarified that the formulation of a compensation framework does not imply liability on the part of the State.
• Individuals retain the right to pursue other legal remedies for vaccine-related injuries.
Introduction
In a landmark judgment, the Supreme Court of India has directed the Union of India to establish a no-fault compensation framework for individuals who suffer serious adverse events following COVID-19 vaccination. This ruling arises from a writ petition filed by parents of young individuals who allegedly died after receiving the vaccine, highlighting the need for a structured approach to address vaccine-related injuries. The Court's decision underscores the constitutional obligation of the State to ensure public health and provide redress for those affected by its public health interventions.
Case Background
The case originated from a writ petition filed by Rachana Gangu and another petitioner, who sought an independent inquiry into the deaths of their daughters following COVID-19 vaccination. The petitioners argued that the Union Government failed to ensure transparency and informed consent, constituting a violation of Article 21 of the Constitution. They sought the establishment of a medical board to investigate these deaths and the formulation of protocols for adverse events following immunization (AEFI).
The Kerala High Court had previously issued interim directions for the formulation of a policy to identify AEFI cases and provide compensation to affected families. This led to the Union of India challenging the High Court's order in the Supreme Court, resulting in the consolidation of several related petitions.
What The Lower Authorities Held
The Kerala High Court had directed the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare to create a policy for recognizing AEFI cases and compensating families of deceased individuals. The High Court's interim order was challenged by the Union of India, which argued that the existing regulatory framework for vaccine safety was sufficient and that claims for compensation should be pursued through civil courts.
The Court's Reasoning
The Supreme Court began by acknowledging the unprecedented suffering caused by the COVID-19 pandemic and the need for a compassionate approach to the issues raised. It emphasized that the petitions raised serious questions regarding the violation of fundamental rights, particularly the right to life under Article 21. The Court recognized that the absence of a uniform policy for compensating individuals who suffered adverse effects from vaccination could lead to constitutional concerns.
The Court reiterated that Article 21 encompasses not only protection against unlawful deprivation of life but also includes the right to health and bodily integrity. It highlighted the State's positive obligation to safeguard the health of its citizens and ensure conditions necessary for the meaningful enjoyment of life.
The Court noted that while the regulatory approval process for vaccines was lawful, the absence of a structured compensation mechanism for those adversely affected by vaccination raised significant constitutional issues. The Court emphasized that the relationship between the individual and the State should not be viewed solely through the lens of fault-based liability, especially in the context of a mass vaccination program.
Statutory Interpretation
The Court's ruling draws upon the principles established in previous judgments regarding the right to health and the State's obligations under Article 21. It referenced the need for a no-fault compensation framework, akin to provisions in other jurisdictions that recognize the necessity of swift relief for individuals harmed by public health interventions.
The Court also highlighted the importance of transparency in the vaccination process, emphasizing that individuals must be adequately informed about the risks associated with vaccination. The ruling aligns with the principles of informed consent and the ethical obligations of the State in public health initiatives.
Constitutional or Policy Context
The judgment situates itself within the broader context of public health policy and the State's duty to protect its citizens. The Court acknowledged that the vaccination program was a critical public health intervention aimed at mitigating the impact of the pandemic. However, it also recognized that the State must not neglect its responsibility to provide redress for those who suffer adverse outcomes as a result of such interventions.
The Court's directive for a no-fault compensation framework reflects a growing recognition of the need for accountability in public health initiatives, particularly in light of the unprecedented scale of the COVID-19 vaccination campaign.
Why This Judgment Matters
This ruling is significant for several reasons. Firstly, it establishes a clear expectation for the State to create a structured compensation mechanism for individuals adversely affected by COVID-19 vaccination. This is a crucial step in ensuring that the rights of citizens are protected and that they have access to timely and fair compensation.
Secondly, the judgment reinforces the importance of transparency and informed consent in vaccination programs. It underscores the need for the State to communicate effectively with the public regarding the risks and benefits of vaccination, thereby fostering trust in public health initiatives.
Finally, the ruling highlights the evolving nature of the relationship between the State and its citizens in the context of public health. It signals a shift towards recognizing the State's positive obligations to provide support and redress for individuals affected by public health interventions, moving beyond a purely fault-based liability framework.
Final Outcome
The Supreme Court directed the Union of India to expeditiously formulate and implement a no-fault compensation policy for serious adverse events following COVID-19 vaccination. The Court also affirmed the adequacy of existing mechanisms for monitoring AEFI and clarified that no separate expert body was necessary for individual case assessments.
Case Details
- Case Title: Rachana Gangu & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.
- Citation: 2026 INSC 218
- Court: IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
- Date of Judgment: 2026-03-10
