Vaccine Mandate Case : Supreme Court Refuses To Take Into Account Developments Subsequent To Reserving Of Judgment

Appearing before the Bench comprising Justices L. Nageswara Rao and B.R. Gavai, Mr. Tiwari sought its permission to mention the matter in order to bring on record the subsequent developments.

"In the vaccine mandate matter, there are certain developments. Just wanted to bring the facts on record."

Justice Rao was of the opinion that the Court was not going to take into account any development subsequent to the hearing that had concluded almost 10 days back and judgment was reserved. He was apprehensive that given the evolving and uncertain nature of the virus, development would take place on a regular basis and if all the developments that took place after the hearing concluded are to be considered then the matter might have to be re-heard, which was not feasible.

"What do we do, should we change the judgment? If we permit you then there might be others who want to circulate. We don't want to take note of anything that has happened after the hearing is over. Otherwise, with this evolving virus we don't know what all developments take place. Then we have to reopen and hear the matter. You circulate whatever you want, we will see. Do not mention anything. It is almost a week, 10 days. We cannot change whatever has happened."

On 22nd March, the Court had reserved that judgment in a plea, inter alia, seeking directions to the Union Government to publicize the data pertaining to the clinical trials of the COVID-19 vaccines administered in India, as per the requirement of the international medical norms. Apart from this, the plea also pointed out non-disclosure of clinical trial data of the vaccines administered to children in India. The petitioner, Dr. Jacob Puliyel, a former member of the National Technical Advisory Group of Immunization, further sought the intervention of the Apex Court to direct revamping of the Adverse Events Following Immunization (AEFI) reporting system, which he claimed was opaque and flawed.

These issues were elaborately argued by Advocate, Mr. Prashant Bhushan, appearing on behalf of the petitioner. He urged the disclosure of clinical trial data for independent evaluation. In this regard he cited the judgment passed by the United States District Court directing the regulatory body, FDA to disclose all information pertaining to the Pfizer vaccine. Reluctant about the bona fides of the petitioner, Solicitor General, Mr. Tushar Mehta appearing for the Union of India and the Counsels appearing for the vaccine manufacturers opposed the plea, inter alia, on the ground that the petitioner cannot seek raw data of the clinical trial of the COVID-19 vaccines to satisfy his curiosity or to sit in judgment of the wisdom of the statutory bodies consisting of domain experts. Moreso, sharing such data would involve privacy concerns for those who had participated in the trials.

The petitioner has also challenged the vaccine mandates imposed by the State Government, particularly, in Delhi, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra and Tamil Nadu. Mr. Bhushan had argued that in the backdrop of non-disclosure of clinical trial data, imposing mandates is in violation of Article 21 of the Constitution. Broadly, the Counsels for the State Governments argued that the vaccine mandates were reasonable in the larger interest of the society. Mr. Mehta also vehemently defended the mandates.

[Case Title: Jacob Puliyel v. Union of India WP(C) No. 607/2021]