In exercise of writ jurisdiction, may the Court embark upon a scientific determination of causality between a vaccine and an individual death, and does declining to do so end the constitutional enquiry?

The 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 being better left to be answered by domain experts. Nevertheless, the Court's inability to undertake scientific inquiry does not exhaust its constitutional enquiry.

Constitution of India — Art. 21 — Art. 14 — Art. 41 — Art. 47 — Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — s.164 — Adverse Event Following Immunization — No-fault compensation — State-led public health intervention — Constitution of India — Art. 21 — State-led public health intervention — Positive obligation of redress — Held: Article 21 embodies a positive obligation of the State to ensure that where grave harm is alleged 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. (¶20, 27) Constitution of India — Art. 14 — Negligence-based remedies — Ill-suited in a mass immunization program — Held further: To insist upon proof of negligence and fault in each case would impose an onerous burden upon affected families, and a multiplicity of individual proceedings risks inconsistent outcomes and unequal access to relief, thereby undermining the guarantee of equality under Article 14. (¶26) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — s.164 — No-fault liability — Swift relief without inquiry into fault — Held further: The principle of no-fault liability is not alien to Indian law, certain categories of harm requiring swift relief without prolonged inquiry into fault. The relationship between the individual and the State cannot be viewed through the prism of fault-based liability. (¶27, 28) Constitution of India — Separation of powers — Absence of a policy — Directions to frame one — Held further: Separation of powers cannot in any scenario come in the way of the Judiciary when fundamental rights are violated due to executive policies, or by lack of them; the Union is directed to formulate a no-fault compensation framework for serious adverse events following immunisation. Writ petition disposed of. (¶33, 37, 38)

One judgment a day. That's the whole habit.

Read the full text of RACHANA GANGU & ANR v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS — and get the Supreme Court's output as a five-minute daily read, with plain-language headnotes and the questions each judgment settles.

Free forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India