Sc

As per your concerned query!

In Vincent Panikurlangara v. Union of India, the Supreme Court opined that the ‘right to maintenance and improvement of public health’ is included in the ‘right to live with human dignity enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution. It held that a healthy body is the very foundation of all human activities and in a welfare state “maintenance and improvement of public health have to rank high amongst the State’s obligations, as these are indispensable to the very existence of the community.” 

Since the worldwide experts recognised vaccinations as the only long-term solution to COVID-19, the compulsory vaccine policy was enacted with a legitimate State aim to battle the issue of vaccine hesitancy and protect individual wellbeing. However, it was dismissed because compulsory vaccinations are executed involuntarily and the lack of consent and intrusion of one’s physical body oppose the fundamental right.

Hope it is helpful
Regards
Minakshi Bindhani

What are the facts? What is the context?

Hello, Greetings!

I'd like to add that The Epidemic Diseases Act of 1897 empowers state governments to take whatever measures necessary to prevent the outbreak or spread of an epidemic disease. While the exercise of this power is subject to the state government’s satisfaction that the existing laws are not sufficient to deal with the epidemic, it would not be excessive for them to take such a step to deal with the biggest health crisis of the century.

The National Disaster Management Act of 2005 vests wide powers with the national authority and the national executive committee, it would be possible for these authorities to mandate compulsory vaccination through appropriate departments in the state governments and the central government. 

the Supreme Court in the case of K.S Puttaswamy v Union of India has quite clearly held that the right to privacy is not an absolute right and may be curtailed as long as the procedure is fair, just and reasonable and as long as the proportional restrictions further a legitimate state aim. So, there is sufficient constitutional leeway for the government to claim the power to enforce compulsory vaccination.

However, in order for such a measure to be constitutional, it would be important for the state to facilitate free and accessible vaccination for the marginalised population. Equal access to vaccination is critical and economic disparity and social marginalisation should not be impediments in any mechanism put in place.

 

As per your concern let me inform you that while hearing a petition recently the Supreme Court said India already has the problem of Covid vaccine hesitancy and no message must come from the court challenging the efficacy of vaccines.

A bench of Justices L Nageswara Rao and Hrishikesh Roy was hearing a petition filed by Jacob Puliel, a former member of the National Technical Advisory Group, demanding disclosure of data regarding clinical trials of Covid-19 vaccines. The petition also sought directions to make public the data on adverse effects of Covid-19 vaccine on people, saying the government was compelling people to get jabbed.
Although the Supreme Court refused to impose an interim stay on compulsory vaccination, it issued notices to the Centre, Health Ministry, ICMR and vaccine manufacturers on the disclosure of Covid vaccine trial data. Hearing the plea, Justice L Nageswara Rao said, "Vaccine has been given to 50 crore people in the country. What do you want the vaccination program to be closed for? Vaccine hesitancy is already going on in the country."

Thus, the SC has led to know specific response whether it is mandatory or not to get vaccinated, however the statements passed by Justice L Nageswara Rao clarifies that there is not necessary to raise such issues before court as India as a country is already suffering a lot and thus, it could be predicted that getting vaccinated is for one's own benefit and safety especially for those who are looking forward to travel to different states.

Regards,
Kevin M. Paul

Mere observations of the Court do not constitute a legal dictum. Moreover, it is a fact there are many a loose end the ongoing vaccination programme. This is all the more so, because the elemantary principle of scientific temper not to blindly follow the obvious!

The Epidemic Diseases Act of 1897 do give various powers to the state and center. 

But
1- can it overpower the right to personal freedom.
2- How can this go against the Nuremberg Code of Medical ethics because none of the Indian vaccines are approved yet they are under EUA
3- Sec 51 of The Epidemic Diseases Act of 1897 says states cannot go beyond the center's guidelines and the center has clearly said vaccines are not mandatory.

Then there should be no question of force vaccination. 


Originally posted by : Ananya Gosain

Hello, Greetings!I'd like to add that The Epidemic Diseases Act of 1897 empowers state governments to take whatever measures necessary to prevent the outbreak or spread of an epidemic disease. While the exercise of this power is subject to the state government’s satisfaction that the existing laws are not sufficient to deal with the epidemic, it would not be excessive for them to take such a step to deal with the biggest health crisis of the century.The National Disaster Management Act of 2005 vests wide powers with the national authority and the national executive committee, it would be possible for these authorities to mandate compulsory vaccination through appropriate departments in the state governments and the central government. the Supreme Court in the case of K.S Puttaswamy v Union of India has quite clearly held that the right to privacy is not an absolute right and may be curtailed as long as the procedure is fair, just and reasonable and as long as the proportional restrictions further a legitimate state aim. So, there is sufficient constitutional leeway for the government to claim the power to enforce compulsory vaccination.However, in order for such a measure to be constitutional, it would be important for the state to facilitate free and accessible vaccination for the marginalised population. Equal access to vaccination is critical and economic disparity and social marginalisation should not be impediments in any mechanism put in place.