Where grave harm is alleged to have occurred in the course of a State-led public health intervention such as a mass COVID-19 vaccination programme, does Article 21 of the Constitution of India oblige the State to provide an accessible mechanism of redress?

Yes. 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 affected families are not left without any accessible mechanism of redress, and the absence of such an institutional framework raises constitutional concerns which warrant a calibrated response.

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