Jacob Puliyel vs Union of India
Background
Dr Jacob Puliyel, a paediatrician and former member of India's National Technical Advisory Group on Immunization, filed a public-interest writ petition challenging the government's COVID-19 vaccination programme. He sought disclosure of segregated clinical trial data, minutes of the expert committees that approved the vaccines, data on adverse events following immunisation, and a declaration that vaccine mandates violate citizens' fundamental rights. The Union of India and several states defended the vaccination policy and the restrictions placed on unvaccinated persons as necessary public-health measures during the pandemic.
Decision Breakdown
The Court held that courts generally must defer to expert/executive opinion on scientific and public-health matters, but this does not bar judicial scrutiny for manifest arbitrariness or unreasonableness. It held that bodily integrity and personal autonomy under Article 21 mean no individual can be forcibly vaccinated, and any restriction on personal autonomy must satisfy the three-fold test of legality, legitimate need, and proportionality. On the evidence, the Court found the government's vaccination policy itself was not arbitrary and that clinical trial data, and information about the approval process, had substantially been made public. However, since no data was placed on record showing unvaccinated persons pose materially greater transmission risk than vaccinated persons, the Court found the various vaccine mandates restricting unvaccinated individuals' access to public places, jobs, and services were disproportionate, and it suggested (without a binding mandatory direction) that all authorities review and, where appropriate, withdraw such restrictions. The Court also directed the Union to make adverse-event reporting more accessible and to publish clinical trial results for paediatric vaccines.
Lesson Learnt
Bodily autonomy is constitutionally protected, and vaccination cannot be forced on any individual; while courts will not second-guess genuine scientific/policy judgments, restrictions that curtail personal liberty (such as denying access to public places or livelihoods to the unvaccinated) must be backed by proportionate, evidence-based justification and are open to be reviewed and withdrawn once no longer necessary.