The Supreme Court of India directed the Union government to formulate a “no-fault compensation” policy for individuals who suffered severe side-effects or died after receiving Covid-19 vaccines. The Court observed that families of vaccine-injury victims should not be compelled to prove negligence in lengthy legal proceedings. Instead, the State must establish a structured compensation mechanism as part of its public health responsibility during the nationwide vaccination drive.
The case arose from petitions filed by families who lost young relatives aged between 18 and 40 years due to rare complications reported after vaccination with Covishield and Covaxin during 2021. Some petitioners alleged that deaths were linked to rare blood clotting disorders, which were reported globally as extremely uncommon adverse reactions following certain vaccines.
Prior to the Supreme Court’s directive, families seeking redress for serious Adverse Events Following Immunization (AEFI) faced significant challenges. The existing system required claimants to prove negligence or fault on the part of the vaccine manufacturers, which often created an arduous legal process that many families could not navigate successfully. Patients and their families were left without sufficient support to address the medical, emotional, and financial repercussions of vaccine complications.
The United Kingdom, Japan, United States and Australia have established such schemes, with varying operational models designed to facilitate accessibility while protecting public health initiatives. The National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP) in the United States since its inception in 1988 has provided support for individuals suffering from vaccine injuries through a no-fault compensation model. The design of this program aims to incentivise vaccinations by providing a safety net for patients, while simultaneously protecting vaccine manufacturers from over-excessive liability claims. Similarly, the United Kingdom operates the Vaccine Damage Payment Scheme, which operates under a no-fault principle as well. Although the threshold for compensation is rather high, requiring claimants to demonstrate a severe injury, the program helps maintain public confidence in vaccination programs. The need for such initiatives becomes increasingly evident in the context of global health, particularly in supporting low- and middle-income countries.
The directive issued by the apex court heralds a significant turning point for public health policy and vaccination campaigns in India. This ruling reinforces the principle of the state’s duty of care in safeguarding its citizens’ health during vaccination drives. The directive establishes a precedent wherein the state must not only monitor the safety of vaccines but also actively communicate any potential risks associated with immunization to the public. This transparency is essential in fostering more informed decision-making by individuals regarding their health choices.
