The Supreme Court on Monday decided to examine a "seminal" issue of right to personal autonomy vis-a-vis public health, in view of "coercive measures" being undertaken by various authorities for Covid-19 vaccination in the country.
A bench of Justices L Nageswara Rao and Aniruddha Bose, however, declined to stay any order on vaccine mandates issued by the authorities for the people to avail certain facilities.
"We won't pass any order as of now as vaccine hesitancy is already a problem," the bench told advocate Prashant Bhushan, who contended people were being forced to take vaccines even though their clinical trial data had not been made public.
The top court, however, issued a notice to the Centre, and Serum Institute of India and Bharat Biotech — makers of Covaxin and Covishield respectively — on a plea for disclosure of data on clinical trials of vaccines and stay on the vaccine mandates.
It sought a response from the Centre and two companies within four weeks on the petition filed by Dr Jacob Puliyel, a former member of the National Technical Advisory Group on Immunisation.
The plea also sought information on reporting of adverse effects after administering the jab.
Bhushan, for his part, said this was the first time in history that a universal vaccination programme had been unrolled without completing trials or placing clinical data in a public domain. Citing a report, he said two-thirds of the population had already been exposed to Covid-19 and vaccinating them may lead to adverse consequences.
The bench, however, said, “More than 50 per cent of population has been vaccinated till now. Will this not raise apprehension in their mind regarding credibility of the vaccine? Do you really think it is in public interest?"
The court also pointed out that the country still had four lakh active Covid-19 cases and the world had not faced a pandemic like this in the last 100 years. It said, in fact, people in various parts of the country were demanding more vaccines.
To this, Bhushan said this was the most important PIL that he has ever filed. He said he was not against vaccination but the citizens should have informed consent. The counsel also said no one should be forced to get vaccinated against his or her choice. There cannot be orders that only vaccinated people would be allowed to travel or open shops as these would be violative of right to livelihood.
The bench said it would consider the issue as similar matters were agitating other jurisdictions the world over.
"You have raised a seminal issue, we will consider it," the bench told Bhushan.