Doubtful If 'Right to Refuse' Covid-19 Vaccine Can Be Exercised When Larger Public Health Interest Is Involved: Madras High Court

"Indeed, vaccinating oneself may not only be to protect oneself but also in the larger interest of public health," observed a Division Bench of Chief Justice Sanjib Banerjee and Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy while dealing with a PIL filed by a visually impaired lawyer— M. Karpagam, for vaccination of persons who are either homebound or with serious disabilities.

The Bench added,

"When such larger interest of public health comes into play and it is possible that a person who has not taken the vaccine may not reveal any symptoms but still be a silent carrier, it is doubtful whether the right to refuse to take the vaccine can be exercised in such circumstances."

The observation was made after the State reported that there is reluctance among the general public to take the vaccine.

The Court suggested that the State should try and persuade persons regarding efficacy of vaccines by conducting awareness campaigns and sharing scientific data.

The order may be read alongside a recent decision of the Meghalaya High Court, holding that mandatory or forceful vaccination impinges on the fundamental right of citizens. It had suggested that people have an "informed choice" with respect to vaccination.

'Forced Vaccination Violates Fundamental Right' : Meghalaya High Court

So far as vaccination of persons with disability is concerned, the Madras High Court noted that appropriate measures have been taken by the State at rehabilitation homes, mental care centres and the like. However, there does not appear to be a plan in place for persons with disabilities who are homebound and do not have the ability or resources to travel, particularly in the semi-urban and rural areas.

It hoped that all persons with disabilities, irrespective of status and resources, shall be taken care of by the State in due course.

Earlier, the High Court had expressed unhappiness over the 'vague' status report filed by the Tamil Nadu Government.

"The status report runs into three pages and the relevant matter is found in paragraph 6, which is completely vague and does not make any distinction between several classes of differently abled persons, particularly those who are homebound and completely unable to travel outside," the Bench had remarked.

Case Title: M. Karpagam v. Commissionarate for Welfare of Differently-Abled & Anr.

Click Here To Download Order

Read Order