The Supreme Court on Monday said that persons who are keen not to get the Covid-19 vaccine on account of personal beliefs or preferences can avoid vaccination, without anyone physically compelling them to be vaccinated.
The top court also held it can scrutinise the government policy, though wide latitude was granted to the executive in this respect.
A bench of Justices L Nageswara Rao and B R Gavai said neither the Union nor the state governments have produced any material before it to justify the discriminatory treatment of unvaccinated individuals in public places by the imposition of Covid-19 vaccine mandates.
“It is true that to be vaccinated or not is entirely the choice of the individual. Nobody can be forcefully vaccinated as it would result in bodily intrusion and violation of the individual’s right to privacy, protected under Article 21 of the Constitution of India,” the bench said.
In its 115-page judgement on a plea against vaccine mandates and disclosure of vaccine trials, the bench said “Bodily integrity is protected under Article 21 of the Constitution and no individual can be forced to be vaccinated."
"Personal autonomy of an individual involves the right of an individual to determine how they should live their own life, which consequently encompasses the right to refuse to undergo any medical treatment in the sphere of individual health," it said.
The bench declared that the restrictions on unvaccinated individuals cannot be considered to be proportionate, especially since both vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals presently appear to be susceptible to transmission of the virus at similar levels.
It also rejected any challenge to the maintainability of the writ petition as the issues raised had a bearing on public health and concern the fundamental rights of individuals in this country.
"As far as judicial review of policy decisions based on expert opinion is concerned, there is no doubt that wide latitude is provided to the executive in such matters and the court does not have the expertise to appreciate and decide on merits of scientific issues on the basis of divergent medical opinion," the bench said
However, this does not bar the court from scrutinising whether the policy in question can be held to be beyond the pale of unreasonableness and manifest arbitrariness and to be in furtherance of the right to life of all persons, the bench added.
Watch the latest DH Videos here: