Holding

The Court held that the absence of a uniform no‑fault compensation framework for serious adverse events following COVID‑19 vaccination violates the right to life under Article 21, and therefore directed the Union to formulate such a policy.

Summary

The petitioners, parents of individuals who died after receiving COVID‑19 vaccines, filed a writ petition under Article 32 seeking an independent medical board, protocols for early detection of adverse events and compensation. Similar petitions were filed in the Kerala High Court, which directed the Union to formulate a policy for identification and compensation of AEFI cases. The Court examined whether the lack of a uniform no‑fault compensation mechanism for deaths or injuries following vaccination violates the right to life and health under Article 21. Relying on the positive‑obligation doctrine, earlier decisions such as Parmanand Katara and Jacob Puliyel, and international practice, the Court held that the State must provide an accessible redressal scheme. Consequently, the Court directed the Union, through the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, to frame a no‑fault compensation policy for serious adverse events following COVID‑19 vaccination, while maintaining existing AEFI surveillance mechanisms. The directions do not preclude other legal remedies and do not imply liability on the Union.

Issues considered

Whether the absence of a uniform policy governing compensation in cases of death or injury following administration of COVID‑19 vaccination results in violation of the right to life protected under the Constitution
If such a violation exists, can the Court direct the respondents to frame a no‑fault compensation policy

Legislation cited

Headnote

Issue for Consideration Whether the absence of a uniform policy governing compensation in cases of death or injury following administration of COVID-19 vaccination results in violation of right to life protected under the Constitution; if yes, can this Court direct the respondents to frame a – Art.21 – Right to Life – Directions by Supreme Court – For formulation of no-fault compensation framework to address serious adverse events following immunisation arising in the context of COVID-19 vaccination: Held: Constitution does not view the right to life solely

Subjects

Death allegedly following administration of COVID-19 vaccinationDeath allegedly due to COVID-19 vaccineDeaths post COVIDAdverse events following immunization (AEFI)No-fault compensation policyCOVID-19 vaccinationPandemicCompensationNo-fault liabilityNo-fault vaccine injury compensation schemeRight to lifeRight to healthPublic health policyFault-based liabilityVaccine-related injuryArticle 41 of Constitution of IndiaArticle 47 of Constitution of India

Judgment

[2026] 3 S.C.R. 393 : 2026 INSC 218

Rachana Gangu & Anr.
v.
Union of India & Ors.
(Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1220 of 2021)
10 March 2026
[Vikram Nath* and Sandeep Mehta, JJ.]

Issue for Consideration
Whether the absence of a uniform policy governing compensation
in cases of death or injury following administration of COVID-19
vaccination results in violation of right to life protected under the
Constitution; if yes, can this Court direct the respondents to frame
a policy in that regard.

Headnotes†
Constitution of India – Art.21 – Right to Life – Directions by
Supreme Court – For formulation of no-fault compensation
framework to address serious adverse events following
immunisation arising in the context of COVID-19 vaccination:
Held: Constitution does not view the right to life solely through the
lens of fault – Art.21 embodies a positive obligation of the State to
ensure that where grave harm is alleged to have occurred in the
course of a State led public health intervention, affected families are
not left without any accessible mechanism of redress – The Union
of India shall, through the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare,
frame a no-fault compensation policy for serious adverse events
following COVID-19 vaccination – The existing mechanisms for
monitoring adverse events following immunisation shall continue,
and relevant data shall be periodically placed in the public domain
in accordance with the observations in Jacob Puliyel – No separate
court-appointed expert body is necessary in view of the existing
mechanisms for scientific assessment of adverse events following
immunisation – Clarified, this judgment shall not preclude any
person from pursuing such other remedies as may be available
in law – Equally, the formulation of the no-fault framework is not
to be construed as an admission of liability or fault on the part of
the Union of India or any authority. [Paras 20, 38]

* Author
394 [2026] 3 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

Constitution of India – Art.21 – Right to Life – Deaths allegedly
after administration of COVID-19 vaccination – Writ petitions
filed seeking inter alia, the constitution of an independent
expert medical board to inquire into such deaths, the
formulation of protocols for early detection and treatment of
adverse events following immunization (AEFI), and the grant of
compensation – In one of the writ petitions filed before the High
Court of Kerala raising similar grievances, High Court passed
interim directions to the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare
and the National Disaster Management Authority to formulate
a policy for identification of AEFI cases and for compensating
the families of such deceased persons – Challenge to:
Held: Present petitions raise serious questions of violation of
fundamental rights, more particularly that of right to life – Constitution
does not view the right to life solely through the lens of fault –
Art.21 embodies a positive obligation of the State to ensure that
where grave harm is alleged to have occurred in the course of a
State led public health intervention, affected families are not left
without any accessible mechanism of redress – The absence of
such an institutional framework raises constitutional concerns which
warrant a calibrated response – Government data itself suggests
that the vaccines also led to loss of life – Thus, State cannot shrug
its responsibility in coming to aid to those affected families who
have lost their near and dear ones – In Jacob Puliyel, this Court
underscored the responsibility of the State in monitoring adverse
events following immunisation – That responsibility cannot end at
surveillance alone, but must extend to providing fair compensation
to those who suffered vaccine-related injury – Union of India shall
continue to ensure that surveillance of adverse events following
immunisation (AEFI) is carried out through efficient monitoring
mechanisms, and that relevant data is placed in the public domain in
a transparent and timely manner – Directions issued for formulation
of no-fault compensation framework to address serious adverse
events following immunisation arising in the context of COVID-19
vaccination – Public Health. [Paras 12, 20, 25, 34, 35, 38]

Public Health – Constitution of India – Arts.21, 14 – Right to
health u/Art.21 – Obligation of State – Vaccine injury claims –
Plea of the Union that individuals aggrieved by adverse
outcomes may seek remedies before civil courts or consumer
fora on the grounds of negligence-based principles.
[2026] 3 S.C.R. 395

Rachana Gangu & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.

Held: While such remedies do exist, they are ill-suited as the
only pathway of redress in the context of a mass immunization
program – Vaccine injury claims raise questions where scientific
attribution is often complex – To insist upon proof of negligence
and fault in each case would impose an onerous burden upon
affected families and would not be the best solution to those left
affected – Further, a multiplicity of individual proceedings risks
inconsistent outcomes and unequal access to relief, thereby
undermining the guarantee of equality u/Art.14 – The relationship
between the individual and the State cannot be viewed through
the prism of fault-based liability – Where the State undertakes an
intervention of this scale in discharging of its duty to protect public
health, the right to health u/Art.21 would automatically extend to a
corresponding obligation of institutional support in cases of grave
outcomes, no matter how rare they are. [Para 26]

Constitution of India – Art.21 – Right to Life includes right to
health – Positive obligation on the State to safeguard health
of its people:
Held: Art.21 is not limited to protection against unlawful deprivation;
of life, but also includes within its ambit a wide range of other rights
that facilitate the smooth operation of right to life – Right to health
and bodily integrity, is one such right – The jurisprudence of this
Court has progressively evolved from recognising the right to health
as a facet of the right to life u/Art.21 to emphasising the positive
duty of the State to act as provider, facilitator, and regulator in all
aspects of healthcare – Present proceedings approached with the
limited objective of examining, whether in the exceptional context
of a pandemic response, the absence of any structured framework
to address serious adverse events raise constitutional concerns
warranting an institutional response – In doing so, neither the vaccine
efficacy is adjudicated upon nor the Court is sitting in scientific review
over the regulatory approval process – The question is confined to
whether the State’s welfare obligations require the exploration of
an equitable mechanism of redressal for harm arisen in the course
of a national public health intervention. [Paras 14, 16, 17]

No-Fault Compensation – Principle of No-fault liability in Indian
Law – No-fault vaccine injury compensation scheme across
various jurisdictions in the world, discussed:
Held: India does not have any uniform or structured policy
mechanism to provide redress to individuals who suffer adverse
396 [2026] 3 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

effects following vaccination – This gap cannot be lightly overlooked,
particularly when vaccination programmes are undertaken as
public health measures under the aegis and authority of the State
itself concern becomes all the more pressing in the context of
the COVID-19 pandemic, where immunisation was carried out
on an unprecedented scale as a collective societal necessity –
In such a situation, the State cannot be heard to say that those
who experience serious adverse consequences must fend for
themselves, without any clear or accessible avenue of relief –
The absence of a coherent framework, therefore, calls for timely
intervention, lest the rights of such persons remain only theoretical
and without meaningful enforcement. [Paras 28-31]

Case Law Cited
Parmanand Katara v. Union of India (1995) 3 SCC 248; State of
Punjab v. Mohinder Singh Chawla [1996] Supp. 10 SCR 279 :
(1997) 2 SCC 83; State of Punjab v. Ram Lubhaya Bagga [1998]
1 SCR 1120 : (1998) 4 SCC 117; Distribution of Essential Supplies
and Services During Pandemic, In re, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 372;
Jacob Puliyel v. Union of India [2022] 3 SCR 471 : 2022 SCC
OnLine SC 533; Gaurav Kumar Bansal v. Union of India [2022]
2 SCR 568 : W.P.(C) No. 539/2021 – referred to.

List of Websites
Extensive studies by ICMR and AIIMS on sudden deaths among
adults post COVID have conclusively established no linkage between
COVID-19 vaccines and sudden deaths, PRESS INFORMATION
BUREAU, <https://www.mohfw.gov.in/?q=en/pressrelease/
extensive-studies-icmr-and-aiims-sudden-deaths-among-adults-
post-covid-have>; WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION, Causality
Assessment of An Adverse Event Following Immunization, <https://
iris.who.int/server/api/core/bitstreams/88d3e61d-63e5-458c-8880-
893f713226d1/content>

List of Acts
Constitution of India; Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

List of Keywords
Death allegedly following administration of COVID-19 vaccination;
Death allegedly due to COVID-19 vaccine; Deaths post COVID;
[2026] 3 S.C.R. 397

Rachana Gangu & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.

Adverse events following immunization (AEFI); No-fault compensation
policy; COVID-19 vaccination; Pandemic; Compensation; No-fault
liability; No-fault vaccine injury compensation scheme; Right to
life; Right to health; Public health policy; Fault-based liability;
Vaccine-related injury; Article 41 of Constitution of India; Article 47
of Constitution of India.

Case Arising From
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (Civil) No.
1220 of 2021
Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India
With
Civil Appeal No. 3257 of 2026, T.P.(C) No. 1716 of 2023 and T.P.(C)
No(s). 2289-2294 of 2024

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Petitioner(s):
Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General, Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, A.S.G., Colin
Gonsalves, Sr. Adv., Manik Gupta, Satya Mitra, Gaurang Bhushan,
Ishaan Sharma, Saurabh Pandey, Ketan Paul, T.S.Sabarish,
Digvijay Dam, Mayank Pandey, Rajat Nair, Sudarshan Lamba,
Amrish Kumar.
Advs. for the Respondent(s):
Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General, Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, A.S.G.,
SP Chaly, Sr. Adv., Rajat Nair, Padmesh Mishra, Ishaan Sharma,
Vijay Awana, Sudarshan Lamba, Ms. Shivika Mehra, Ms. Riddhi
Jad, Ketan Paul, Sudarshan Lamba, Rajat Nair, Ketan Paul, Ishaan
Sharma, Digvijay Dam, Ms. Tanvi Dubey, Mayank Pandey, Arvind
Kumar Sharma, Ms. Anu B., Shivam Sharma, Vaibhav Choudhary,
Bibhuti Krishna, Prashant Bhushan, Prabhu K.N., Sureshan P.,
Vijay R. Deshmukh, Subhash S. Karnale, Hitesh Kumar Sharma,
Akhileshwar Jha, Anupam Kumar, Honey Sharma, A.K. Sharma,
Nishe Rajen Shonker, Mrs. Anu K Joy, Alim Anvar, Santhosh K,
Mrs. Devika A.l., Shishir Pinaki, C Unnikrishnan, Pranav Krishna, Jai
Gopal Yadav, Ms. Akanksha Singh, Aljo K. Joseph, Rajesh Kumar,
Saket Jee, N Leela Vara Prasad, Santhosh Kumar Kolkundra,
Vinay Kumar Puvvala, Rohit Kalra, Ms. Ankita Kutthi, Mohammed
Sadique T.a., Mrs. Devika A.l., Pranav Sarthi, Utkarsh Vatsa,
Ms. Prachi Dhingra, Ramesh Babu M. R., Pranav P P.
398 [2026] 3 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

Judgment

Vikram Nath, J.

1. Leave granted in SLP(C) No. 16452/2023.
2. The COVID-19 pandemic was an unprecedented period of suffering
and disruption, which brought grief and hardship to countless families
across the country. Many lives were lost, and many households were
left to bear sorrow that cannot easily be expressed in words. The
present proceedings arise in the aftermath of that difficult time. The
Court approaches the issues raised with a deep sense of empathy
for the human loss endured during the pandemic, while remaining
mindful that the questions before it must be examined with care and
within the constitutional limits of judicial determination.
3. At the outset, it is relevant to note that a writ petition under Article
32 of the Constitution, registered as W.P.(C) No. 1220 of 2021
(Rachana Gangu & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.), was instituted
before the Supreme Court by parents of young individuals who had
received COVID-19 vaccination and are stated to have died thereafter.
The petition sought, inter alia, the constitution of an independent
expert medical board to inquire into such deaths, the formulation of
protocols for early detection and treatment of adverse events following
immunization (AEFI), and the grant of compensation.
4. Subsequent thereto, writ petitions raising similar grievances came
to be filed before the High Court of Kerala. One such petition was
Sayeeda K.A. v. Union of India & Ors. (W.P.(C) No. 17628 of 2022,
High Court of Kerala), wherein the petitioner sought directions for
recognition of a death allegedly following COVID-19 vaccination as
an AEFI case and for the grant of compensation to the dependants
of the deceased. By an interim order dated 01.09.2022, the Kerala
High Court directed the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare and
the National Disaster Management Authority to formulate, within a
stipulated period, a policy for identification of AEFI cases and for
compensating the families of such deceased persons.
5. Aggrieved by the aforesaid interim directions, the respondents
approached this Court in SLP(C) No. 16452/2023 challenging the
[2026] 3 S.C.R. 399

Rachana Gangu & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.

interim order passed by the High Court in Sayeeda K.A. v. Union of
India & Ors.. A Transfer Petition TP(C) No.1716/2023 was also field
seeking transfer of proceedings from the High Court to this Court as
the same issue was pending adjudication.
6. With respect to W.P.(C) Nos. 13487/2022, 13573/2022, 11276/2022,
35180/2022, 37055/2022 and 38961/2022 pending before the Kerala
High Court where similar prayers of compensation were made by the
petitioners, the respondent Union of India filed T.P.(C) Nos. 2289-
2294/2024 seeking transfer of these proceedings before this Court.
Consequently, the Article 32 writ petition, the proceedings arising
from the Kerala High Court, and the connected matters were listed
together for consideration. For ease of convenience, W.P.(C) No.
1220 of 2021 is taken as the lead case. The disposal of this writ
petition shall govern the disposal of all connected matters.
7. A brief summary of facts giving rise to each case is as follows:
i. Rachna Gangu & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors., W.P.(C) No.
1220 of 2021
Petitioner’s younger daughter, aged 18 years, received the first
dose on 29.05.2021. Her platelet count dropped, she had severe
headache, and had a tingly and numb feeling in her fingertips.
Her condition worsened and the petitioner was informed that
her daughter had been diagnosed with CVST- Cerebral Venous
Sinus Thrombosis. She passed away on 19.06.2021
Petitioner’s elder daughter, aged 20 years, received the first
dose of vaccine on 08.06.2021. She had high fever, arthralgia,
headache and myalgia. In the following days, she developed
Multisytem Inflammatory Syndrome (MIS- C/A) She lost her
life on 10.07.2021.
ii. Sayeeda K.A. v. Union of India & Ors. in W.P.(C) 17628/2022
before Kerala High Court
Husband Abdul Nazeer M.H. who was otherwise in good health
received his first dose of vaccine on 08.06.2021. On the same
day at 03.03 p.m., he was declared dead. The post-mortem
report did not reveal a definite reason as to the cause of death,
however it was noted that the possibility of death due to Heart
Pathology following COVID-19 cannot be ruled out.
400 [2026] 3 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

iii. Renjith R v. Union of India & Ors. in W.P.(C) No. 13487/2022
before Kerala High Court
Petitioner’s wife Mahima aged 31 years, received the vaccine on
06.08.2021 and passed away on 20.08.2021. She was pregnant
with twins at that time. She died of Thromobocytopenia. The
cause of death as classified by the respondent was AEFI.
iv. Jean George v. Serum Institute of India Limited & Ors. in W.P.
(C) No. 13573/2022 before Kerala High Court
Nova Sabu, aged 19 years, was the only daughter of the
petitioner. She took the vaccine on 28.07.2021. She passed
away on 12.08.2021. The cause of her death as mentioned
in the post-mortem report was ‘intra cranial bleeding of brain’.
She had no history of neurological illness.
v. Rajagopalan K v. Union of India & Ors. in W.P. (C) No.
11276/2022 before Kerala High Court
Petitioner took the first dose of vaccine on 08.02.2021.
Following that, he developed fever and his situation worsened.
He was ultimately diagnosed with limbic encephalitis along
with ‘systematic inflammatory state in the form of deranged
coagulation parameter. It was diagnosed as a probable auto
immune encephalitis following post COVID-19 vaccination.
vi. Ginu G Kumar v. Serum Institute of India Ltd. & Ors. in W.P.(C)
No. 35180/2022 before Kerala High Court
Petitioner’s wife, aged 37 years, was vaccinated on 02.08.2021.
She was declared dead on 23.08.2021 and the cause of her
death was ‘intra cerebral haemorrhage’. The medical report
revealed she had thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome,
which is a complication of Covishield vaccine, although rare.
vii. Ansaria AK v. Union of India & Ors. in W.P. (C) No. 37055/2022
before Kerala High Court
Petitioner’s husband took the vaccine on 13.03.2021. He
developed a high fever after that and the doctors could not
pinpoint the exact cause for the problem. He eventually suffered
from paralysis. Neurologist’s report arrived at the conclusion
that patient had been paralyzed due to the administration of
Covishield vaccine.
[2026] 3 S.C.R. 401

Rachana Gangu & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.

viii. Narayan`an MV & Anr. v. Serum Institute of India Ltd. & Ors.
in W.P. (C) No. 38691/2022 before Kerala High Court
Petitioner’s elder daughter, aged 18 years, received the vaccine
on 26.10.2021. She developed a mild fever and continuous
headache following it. She was admitted to the hospital.
She ultimately passed away on 06.11.2021. Thrombotic
Thrombocytopenia was identified as the cause of her death.
8. It is in this factual and procedural backdrop that the Court is called
upon to examine the legality and propriety of the interim directions
issued by the Kerala High Court, as well as the extent to which
judicial intervention is warranted in matters touching upon adverse
events following immunization, compensation, and public health policy.

Submissions
9. The submissions advanced on behalf of the appellants are
summarised hereunder.
9.1 Learned counsel for the appellants have argued at length
highlighting the Union Government’s failure to ensure
transparency, informed consent and post-vaccination
surveillance, thereby constituting a violation of Article 21 of
the Constitution. They allege that deaths caused after the
administration of COVID-19 vaccines expose structural defects
in India’s vaccine governance regime.
9.2 It is submitted that the respondents’ contention that vaccination
was entirely voluntary is incorrect. According to them, public
communication and administrative measures created an
atmosphere of effective compulsion. It is urged that restrictions
were imposed upon unvaccinated individuals, including
limitations on travel and access to certain public spaces and
services, thereby pressuring citizens to undergo vaccination
irrespective of their autonomy or informed consent.
9.3 Appellants contend that a significant body of scientific evidence
had emerged linking AstraZeneca vaccine, of which Covishield
is a version, to fatal blood clotting disorders (VITT/TTS). By
March-April 2021, around 18 European countries had suspended
or restricted its administration, limiting its use to older age
groups due to multiple vaccine-induced deaths. It is alleged
402 [2026] 3 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

that the Government, despite having exclusive possession
of facts essential for decision making, did not either publish
causality assessments or maintain a publicly accessible portal,
which is in clear violation of the expectation recorded by this
Court in Jacob Puliyel v. Union of India. This control by the
Government over AEFI data, combined with non-disclosure of
serious adverse events, deprived citizens of information crucial
to make an informed decision.
9.4 The appellants further allege that, despite possessing relevant
information regarding potential adverse effects, the respondents
failed in their duty to adequately warn users, caregivers, and
the medical community about known serious side effects. It is
specifically contended that the Drug Controller General of India
publicly stated on 04.01.2021 that the vaccines were “110%
safe,” which, according to the appellants, contributed to a false
sense of absolute safety and undermined informed consent.
9.5 They ultimately highlight that the non-disclosure of voluntariness,
lack of truthful risk communication, investigative lapses in
monitoring AEFI, denial of access to medical records, absence
of diagnostic protocols and non-publication of causality
assessments has led to the violation of Articles 14, 19(1)(a) and
21 of the Constitution. It was argued that many individuals had
lost their lives, and many families their sole breadwinners. For
the large number of similarly placed vaccine-injured citizens,
it was submitted, formation of a policy which ensures grant
of fair and timely compensation would secure a life of dignity.
10. Per contra, leaned counsel for the respondents have strongly opposed
the submissions made on behalf of the appellants and made the
following submissions:
10.1 That the safety of COVID-19 vaccines and their regulatory
approval was in accordance with the statutory procedure
prescribed under the law and the same was examined in detail
by this Court in Jacob Puliyel. The vaccine was given marketing
approval by the CDSCO (Central Drugs Standard Control
Organisation). Following that, NTAGI (National Technical
Advisory Group of Immunization), which is the apex advisory
body on immunization, compiled the scientific evidence on the
vaccine, and the same was sent to the COVID-19 Working
[2026] 3 S.C.R. 403

Rachana Gangu & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.

Group. In order to oversee all aspects of vaccine administration,
the Government constituted the National Expert Group on
Vaccine Administration for COVID-19 (NEGVAC), which
provided the final layer of expert review for recommendations
related to the vaccine. This is a testament to the fact that the
vaccines have gone through a rigorous regulatory approval
process with multifarious approval processes including reviews
by independent experts. They also averred that this Court has
found the approval of COVID-19 vaccines to be in accordance
with law.
10.2 That the system of AEFI surveillance, monitoring and
investigation is administered by leading scientific and medical
experts. The AEFI Committees are created at the State and
Central level to provide guidance to the program and carry
out documentation, investigation and causality assessment.
An AEFI can be reported by any person, on the CoWIN portal
or otherwise to the District Immunization Officer (DIO). For
all severe and serious AEFI cases, causality assessment is
conducted by trained medical experts of the State or National
AEFI Committee. It was also submitted that considering the
novel nature of the virus, the Committee was expanded
to include cardiologists, neurologists, respiratory medicine
specialists and other medical specialists. With respect to the
causality assessment, it was submitted that result of the same
was made public and was available on the website of Ministry
of Health and Family Welfare (MoHFW). The Operational
Guidelines shared with the States and the Union Territories
clearly recommended that the vaccine beneficiaries should
be informed about the benefits and side-effects alike. Posters
with information on the risks involved were also prepared in
English and Hindi, which were to be displayed in all vaccination
centres across the country.
10.3 That the occurrences of Thromboemolic events (TTS),
which were identified as an AEFI, were very miniscule. It
was submitted that in India, as compared to other European
countries, occurrence of TTS was a rare event since different
populations react differently to different vaccines due to genetic
variations. In India, the reporting rate of TTS was 0.001 per
one lakh doses, making it an extremely rare occurrence. It was
404 [2026] 3 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

further submitted that the existing mechanism for monitoring,
investigation and analysis of AEFIs is adequate, effective and
transparent. It was strongly urged that if an independent review
of AEFI is allowed, then that would plant a seed of doubt in
the existing regulatory system and harm public interest.
10.4 That a claim for compensation for an AEFI related death does
not lie under writ jurisdiction. It was contended that a claim
can be made at two stages- first, during the clinical trial stage,
where the vaccine manufacturer is under a legal obligation to
provide treatment to the trial participant in case of an injury
or death; second, at the vaccine administration stage, in case
of an untoward incident, appropriate remedies are available
in law to the vaccine beneficiary or their family. This includes
approaching consumer courts seeking damages for negligence,
malfeasance or misfeasance, which is determined on a day-
to-day basis. It was brought to our attention that unlike other
countries where vaccine manufacturers have legal immunity
from such claims, the manufacturers here do not have any
legal immunity whatsoever. Therefore, all those aggrieved
can approach the consumer courts and pursue their claims.

Issues
11. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and
examined the submissions placed on record, the broad issues that
have arisen for our determination are as follows:
i. Whether the absence of a uniform policy governing compensation
in cases of death or injury following administration of COVID-19
vaccination results in violation of Right to Life protected under
the Constitution?
ii. If yes, can this Court direct the respondents to frame a policy
in that regard?

Analysis
12. At the outset, we would like to reiterate that the petitions before
us raise serious questions of violation of fundamental rights, more
particularly that of right to life. The respondent Union of India has
urged that the questions raised by the appellants traverse into a
[2026] 3 S.C.R. 405

Rachana Gangu & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.

realm of scientific inquiry, and that the individuals aggrieved by
the adverse outcomes have the door of private remedies open
for them. The Court is conscious that questions of public health,
governance, vaccine approval and element of causality involve
complex technical considerations, and that the constitutional courts
must exercise appropriate restraint in domains entrusted exclusively
for determination by the executive branch.
13. At the same time, a closer look at the petitions reveals that the
question is not just confined to the adjudication of individual cases.
The grievance here is much deeper, namely, that families alleging
grave harm during the course of State-led vaccination program are
left without any uniform remedy to seek redressal.

Extension of the Right to Health
14. It is well settled that Article 21 is not limited to protection against
unlawful deprivation; of life, but also includes within its ambit a wide
range of other rights that facilitate the smooth operation of right to
life. Right to health and bodily integrity, is one such right. This Court
has not shied away from upholding this constitutional idea and
recognizing that the State bears a positive obligation to safeguard
health of its people and ensure conditions necessary for meaningful
enjoyment of life.
15. In the aftermath of the unfortunate Bhopal Gas Tragedy, this Court
had expressed its anguish at the plight of the affected persons and
noted the absence of a coordinated and effective effort to provide
timely care and redress to them. It was noted:
“9. It is indeed a matter for national introspection that
public response to this great tragedy which affected a
large number of poor and helpless persons limited itself
to the expression of understandable anger against the
industrial enterprise but did not channel itself in any effort
to put together a public supported relief fund so that the
victims were not left in distress, till the final decision in
the litigation.”
10. This Court, considered it a compelling duty, both judicial
and humane, to secure immediate relief to the victims.
In doing so, the court did not enter upon any forbidden
406 [2026] 3 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

ground. Indeed, efforts had earlier been made in this
direction by Judge Keenan in the United States and by
the learned District Judge at Bhopal. What this court did
was in continuation of what had already been initiated.”1
16. The jurisprudence of this Court has progressively evolved from
recognising the right to health as a facet of the right to life under
Article 21 in Parmanand Katara v. Union of India2 to emphasising
the positive duty of the State to act as provider, facilitator, and
regulator in all aspects of healthcare. In State of Punjab v. Mohinder
Singh Chawla,3 this Court had reiterated that “it is now settled law
that right to health is integral to the right to life. Government has a
constitutional obligation to provide health facilities.” Again, in State of
Punjab v. Ram Lubhaya Bagga,4 this Court observed that “the State
can neither urge nor say that it has no obligation to provide medical
facility. If that were so, it would be ex facie violative of Article 21”.
17. The Court therefore approaches the present proceedings with the
limited objective of examining, whether in the exceptional context
of a pandemic response, the absence of any structured framework
to address serious adverse events raise constitutional concerns
warranting an institutional response. In doing so, we reiterate that
we are neither adjudicating upon the vaccine efficacy nor sitting in
scientific review over the regulatory approval process. The question
is confined to whether the State’s welfare obligations require the
exploration of an equitable mechanism of redressal for harm arisen
in the course of a national public health intervention.
18. This Court in Distribution of Essential Supplies and Services
During Pandemic, In re5 specifically talked about special duty cast on
the executive in times of emergency such as this and the subsequent
duty of the Court in ensuring that the executive acts within the
constitutional boundaries. The relevant portion is extracted below:
“16. Similarly, courts across the globe have responded to
constitutional challenges to executive policies that have

1 Union Carbide Corpn. v. Union of India (1989) 3 SCC 38.
2 (1995) 3 SCC 248.
3 (1997) 2 SCC 83.
4 (1998) 4 SCC 117.
5 2021 SCC OnLine SC 372.
[2026] 3 S.C.R. 407

Rachana Gangu & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.

directly or indirectly violated rights and liberties of citizens.
Courts have often reiterated the expertise of the executive
in managing a public health crisis, but have also warned
against arbitrary and irrational policies being excused
in the garb of the “wide latitude” to the executive that is
necessitated to battle a pandemic. This Court in Gujarat
Mazdoor Sabha vs State of Gujarat,6 albeit while speaking
in the context of labour rights, had noted that policies to
counteract a pandemic must continue to be evaluated from
a threshold of proportionality to determine if they, inter alia,
have a rational connection with the object that is sought
to be achieved and are necessary to achieve them.”
19. This Court does not proceed on the premise that the regulatory
approval process or the vaccination programme was unlawful
or deficient. The measures were undertaken in extraordinary
circumstances with the objective of protecting public health. As
submitted by the respondents, this has already been dealt with by
the Court in Jacob Puliyel v. Union of India.7 The relevant portion
is extracted below:
“117. An analysis of the submissions made by the learned
counsel appearing for the parties and a close scrutiny of
the material placed on record would show that there is
a strict statutory regime in force for grant of approvals
to vaccines. Specialist bodies established under the
provisions of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 and the
rules framed thereunder comprise of domain experts in
the relevant field, who conduct a thorough scrutiny of the
material produced by the manufacturers before granting
approval. The information provided on behalf of the Union
of India substantiates that the data provided by the vaccine
manufacturers was considered by the SEC over a period
of time and several conditions were imposed at the time
of recommending approvals, which have been modified
or lifted subsequently on availability of further data arising
from the clinical trials before the SEC, as can be seen

6 AIR 2020 SC 4601, para 9.
7 2022 SCC OnLine SC 533.
408 [2026] 3 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

from the minutes of the meetings of the SEC, available
on the website of the MoHFW.
118. We do not agree with the submission on behalf of
the petitioner that emergency approvals to the vaccines
were given in haste, without properly reviewing the data
from clinical trials.”
20. However, the Constitution does not view the right to life solely through
the lens of fault. Article 21 also embodies a positive obligation of the
State to ensure that where grave harm is alleged to have occurred
in the course of a State-led public health intervention, affected
families are not left without any accessible mechanism of redress.
The absence of such an institutional framework raises constitutional
concerns which warrant a calibrated response.
21. The Union of India has submitted that question of causality between
the vaccination and the resultant deaths involve scientific assessment.
They also admit that such an assessment has been conducted by
them and no relation has been found between the two. This Court
in Jacob Puliyel did a detailed examination of the AEFI surveillance
system in India and recorded the following:
“132. From the material placed before us, we note that
the National AEFI Surveillance Secretariat has been
functioning for 10 years and as has been pointed out, there
is a well-established protocol in place for identification and
monitoring of AEFIs. The website of the MoHFW carries
the results of causality assessment of AEFI cases, from
which the public can obtain relevant information pertaining
to AEFIs. We have been informed that a thorough causality
assessment analysis of AEFIs is carried out by experts and
not every severe disease and death can be attributed to
vaccination. Reactions are examined by experts specifically
trained to undertake causality analysis before notifying
such reactions as adverse events arising from vaccination.
There is a well-defined mechanism for collection of data
relating to adverse events that occur due to COVID-19
vaccines and the Government of India has taken steps to
direct all medical professionals concerned at the ground
level to report adverse events. Even medical practitioners
at private hospitals are associated with reporting of adverse
[2026] 3 S.C.R. 409

Rachana Gangu & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.

events. Therefore, we are not inclined to accept the broad
strokes challenge mounted by the petitioner that the
surveillance system of AEFIs in this country is faulty and
the correct figures of those who have suffered any side
effects, severe reactions or deaths post inoculation have
not been disclosed.”
22. It has come to our notice that extensive studies conducted by
Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) and National Centre
for Disease Control (NCDC) have affirmed that there is no direct
link between the vaccines and sudden deaths caused thereafter.
They have concluded that the vaccines are safe with extremely rare
instances of side effects.8 This court accords due weight to such
scientific findings. At the same time, the expression ‘Adverse Event
Following Immunization’ (AEFI), as recognized by the World Health
Organization (WHO) denotes any untoward medical occurrence after
vaccination which does not necessarily have a causal relationship
with the vaccine itself.9
23. This Court does not consider it either feasible or appropriate, in a
writ jurisdiction, to embark upon a scientific determination of causality
in individual cases. Such questions are better left to be answered
by domain experts. Nevertheless, the Court’s inability to undertake
scientific inquiry does not exhaust its constitutional enquiry.
24. The Constitution does not conceive of the State as a distant spectator
to human suffering, but as an active guardian of welfare and dignity.
The Directive Principles of State Policy illuminate this vision with
clarity. Article 41 speaks of public assistance in cases of sickness
and disablement, within the limits of State’s capacity. Article 47
declares the improvement of public health to be among the State’s
primary duties.
25. The vaccination program undertaken during the pandemic was itself
an expression of these constitutional commitments. The State went
above and beyond in order to create a vaccination scheme and the

8 Extensive studies by ICMR and AIIMS on sudden deaths among adults post COVID have conclusively
established no linkage between COVID-19 vaccines and sudden deaths, Press Information Bureau,
<https://www.mohfw.gov.in/?q=en/pressrelease/extensive-studies-icmr-and-aiims-sudden-deaths-
among-adults-post-covid-have>.
9 World Health Organization, Causality Assessment of An Adverse Event Following Immunization,
<https://iris.who.int/server/api/core/bitstreams/88d3e61d-63e5-458c-8880-893f713226d1/content>.
410 [2026] 3 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

same undoubtedly helped save many lives. But at the same time, as
the government data itself suggests, it cannot be brushed aside that
the same vaccines also led to loss of life. In such a situation, it is not
appropriate that the State shrugs its responsibility in coming to aid
to those affected families who have lost their near and dear ones.
26. The Union has urged that individuals aggrieved by adverse outcomes
may seek remedies before civil courts or consumer fora on the
grounds of negligence-based principles. While such remedies do
exist, the Court is of the view that they are ill-suited as the only
pathway of redress in the context of a mass immunization program.
Vaccine injury claims raise questions where scientific attribution is
often complex. To insist upon proof of negligence and fault in each
case would impose an onerous burden upon affected families and
would not be the best solution to those left affected. Further, a
multiplicity of individual proceedings risks inconsistent outcomes
and unequal access to relief, thereby undermining the guarantee of
equality under Article 14.
27. In such a setting, the relationship between the individual and the State
cannot be viewed through the prism of fault-based liability. Where the
State undertakes an intervention of this scale in discharging of its
duty to protect public health, the right to health under Article 21 would
automatically extend to a corresponding obligation of institutional
support in cases of grave outcomes, no matter how rare they are.

No-Fault Compensation
28. The principle of no-fault liability is not alien to Indian law. Section 164
of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 stipulates a fixed liability of the owner
even though the accident was caused without any fault of her own,
subject to certain conditions. The rationale behind it is simple- certain
categories of harm require swift relief without prolonged inquiry into
fault.
29. Even across the world in many jurisdictions, no-fault vaccine injury
compensation scheme is a recognized feature of a welfare-state
response. Some policies are listed below:
i. Australia, which did not have a no-fault vaccine injury
compensation program already in place, introduced a
comprehensive policy on COVID-19 vaccination compensation
[2026] 3 S.C.R. 411

Rachana Gangu & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.

called the ‘COVID-19 Vaccine Claims Scheme Policy 2021’.
It lays out the basis on which the government may make a
grant of financial assistance to a person who submits a claim
for compensation. It covers losses or expenses arising from
administration of a COVID-19 vaccine or an adverse effect which
is recognized as vaccine-related. The scheme recognises graded
categories of injury, including death, and provides structured
compensation covering medical expenses, loss of earnings,
dependency benefits, and funeral costs.
ii. Similarly, the United Kingdom, which already had a no-fault
compensation scheme for vaccines, incorporated COVID-19
vaccines into the scheme from 31 December 2020. The scheme
is administered by the NHS Business Services Authority and
funded by the government. It covers vaccine recipients, their
representatives, or estates at no cost to file claims.
iii. The World Health Organization’s COVID-19 Vaccines Global
Access (COVAX) initiative which covered low and middle-
income countries also had a No-Fault Compensation Program
which provided a lump sum compensation to eligible individuals
who suffered from adverse events after receiving the vaccine
distributed through the COVAX Facility till 30 June 2022.
iv. Japan had a no-fault compensation scheme for vaccine related
injuries since 1976, and it added COVID-19 vaccines as
‘temporary vaccinations’ after a 2020 amendment. It covers a
wide range of adverse reactions related to COVID-19 vaccines.
30. It is evident from the policies adopted internationally that Governments
have acknowledged the need to address vaccine-related injuries
through dedicated compensation mechanisms. Such programmes
provide an expeditious and fair avenue of relief, obviating the necessity
for affected persons to be relegated to the labyrinthine processes in
order to secure enforcement of their claims.
31. In contrast, as matters stand today, India does not appear to have in
place any uniform or structured policy mechanism to provide redress
to individuals who suffer adverse effects following vaccination. This
gap cannot be lightly overlooked, particularly when vaccination
programmes are undertaken as public health measures under
the aegis and authority of the State itself. The concern becomes
412 [2026] 3 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

all the more pressing in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic,
where immunisation was carried out on an unprecedented scale
as a collective societal necessity. In such a situation, the State
cannot be heard to say that those who experience serious adverse
consequences must fend for themselves, without any clear or
accessible avenue of relief. The absence of a coherent framework,
therefore, calls for timely intervention, lest the rights of such persons
remain only theoretical and without meaningful enforcement.
32. It must also be acknowledged that, from the onset of the pandemic,
efforts were undertaken at every level of governance to mitigate the
impact of the pandemic. This Court, at the beginning took suo moto
cognizance of the situation in Distribution of Essential Supplies and
Services During Pandemic, In re10 which led to the development of
a national policy, the issues of oxygen supply, drugs, administration
and pricing of vaccines were also adjudicated upon. Similarly in
Gaurav Kumar Bansal v. Union of India in W.P.(C) No. 539/2021,
this Court had directed the National Disaster Management Authority
to frame appropriate guidelines for ex-gratia assistance to families of
persons who died due to COVID-19. The Court recognized that while
the design of the policy lies within the executive domain, the absence
of any structured framework of relief in exceptional circumstances
affecting life and dignity may warrant a limited institutional response.
33. That said, this Court has time and again also reiterated that the
executive, which has been democratically elected by the people of
the country and is accountable for its actions to them, is vested with
the competence and authority to draft policies. But at the same time,
this constitutionally protected separation of powers cannot in any
scenario come in the way of Judiciary when the fundamental rights
of its citizens are violated due to executive policies, or by lack of
them, as in this case. In such circumstances, the constitutional duty
of this Court to safeguard the rights of citizens cannot be eclipsed.
34. This Court, in Jacob Puliyel, underscored the responsibility of the
State in monitoring adverse events following immunisation. In our
considered view, that responsibility cannot end at surveillance alone,
but must extend to providing fair compensation to those who suffered
vaccine-related injury, in light of the discussion above.

10 Supra note 5.
[2026] 3 S.C.R. 413

Rachana Gangu & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.

35. In addition to this, to allay the concerns of the appellants regarding
the inefficiency in monitoring AEFIs, we reiterate that the Union of
India shall continue to ensure that surveillance of adverse events
following immunisation (AEFI) is carried out through efficient
monitoring mechanisms, and that relevant data is placed in the public
domain in a transparent and timely manner. This is consistent with
the observation of this Court in Jacob Puliyel which is produced
hereinbelow:
“144.8. We are also of the opinion that information relating
to adverse effects following immunisation is crucial for
creating awareness around vaccines and their efficacy,
apart from being instrumental in further scientific studies
around the pandemic. Recognising the imperative need
for collection of requisite data of adverse events and wider
participation in terms of reporting, the Union of India is
directed to facilitate reporting of suspected adverse events
by individuals and private doctors on an accessible virtual
platform. These reports shall be made publicly accessible,
without compromising on protecting the confidentiality of
the persons reporting, with all necessary steps to create
awareness of the existence of such a platform and of
the information required to navigate the platform to be
undertaken by the Union of India at the earliest.”
36. With respect to the issue regarding forming an independent expert
board to look into the deaths caused, we are satisfied with the
submissions made by the respondent that a framework already exists
consisting of National and State AEFI Committees which investigate
into the deaths and injuries caused after the administration of vaccines.
As discussed before, this court is not sitting in a scientific inquiry into
the question of causation. In our opinion, this mechanism is adequate
and there is no need to conduct any independent inquiry into the
individual cases of deaths. In the absence of any material indicating
that such mechanisms are non-functional or incapable of performing
their role, it would not be appropriate for this Court, in exercise of its
writ jurisdiction, to constitute a parallel body to undertake individual
medical determinations.
37. In view of the foregoing discussion, and having regard to the limited
constitutional concerns which arose for consideration, the Union of
414 [2026] 3 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

India, through the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare is hereby
directed to expeditiously formulate and place in the public domain
an appropriate no-fault compensation framework to address serious
adverse events following immunisation) arising in the context of
COVID-19 vaccination.

Conclusion
38. In the end, the following directions are issued:
i. The Union of India shall, through the Ministry of Health and
Family Welfare, frame a no-fault compensation policy for serious
adverse events following COVID-19 vaccination.
ii. The existing mechanisms for monitoring adverse events
following immunisation shall continue, and relevant data shall
be periodically placed in the public domain in accordance with
the observations in Jacob Puliyel.
iii. No separate court-appointed expert body is considered
necessary in view of the existing mechanisms for scientific
assessment of adverse events following immunisation.
iv. It is clarified that this judgment shall not preclude any person
from pursuing such other remedies as may be available in law.
Equally, the formulation of the no-fault framework shall not be
construed as an admission of liability or fault on the part of the
Union of India or any authority.
39. Accordingly, the writ petition and other connected matters are
disposed of.

Result of the case: Writ petition and other connected matters
disposed of.

†
Headnotes prepared by: Divya Pandey