Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court dismissed a batch of writ petitions and connected matters seeking compensation for deaths allegedly caused by COVID-19 vaccination -- The petitioners, including parents of deceased individuals, filed under Article 32 and before the Kerala High Court, requesting an independent expert board, AEFI protocols, and compensation -- The Kerala High Court issued interim directions for policy formulation, which were challenged -- The Supreme Court, led by Justice Vikram Nath, examined the legality of these directions and the role of judicial intervention -- It held that public health policy, including AEFI compensation, falls within executive domain and is governed by the Disaster Management Act, 2005 and guidelines -- The Court found no arbitrariness in the existing framework and set aside the High Court's interim directions as pre-emptive -- All petitions were dismissed, affirming that compensation claims must be addressed through statutory mechanisms, not constitutional writs
Headnote
The Supreme Court, in a batch of writ petitions and connected matters, addressed claims for compensation following deaths allegedly linked to COVID-19 vaccination -- The petitioners, sought constitution of an independent expert medical board, protocols for AEFI detection and treatment, and compensation under Article 32 of the Constitution -- The Kerala High Court, in Sayeeda K.A. v. Union of India & Ors., issued interim directions for formulating a compensation policy, which was challenged before the Supreme Court -- The Court held that judicial intervention in public health policy is limited and must respect the expertise of executive bodies -- It emphasized that compensation for AEFI is governed by the Disaster Management Act, 2005 and existing guidelines, not by constitutional writs -- The interim directions of the High Court were set aside as exceeding jurisdictional limits -- The petitions were dismissed, upholding the government's AEFI framework and rejecting claims for judicial mandamus on compensation
Issue of Consideration
The Issue of whether the Kerala High Court's interim directions for formulating a compensation policy for AEFI cases were legally valid and whether judicial intervention is warranted in matters of public health policy and vaccine-related deaths
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed all writ petitions and connected matters, set aside the interim directions of the Kerala High Court, and upheld the government's existing AEFI framework under the Disaster Management Act, 2005
Law Points
- Judicial review of public health policy is limited to examining arbitrariness and irrationality
- not substituting executive wisdom -- Compensation for adverse events following immunization (AEFI) is governed by statutory frameworks under the Disaster Management Act
- 2005 and guidelines
- not by constitutional writ jurisdiction -- The principle of parens patriae does not empower courts to mandate compensation beyond established legal mechanisms -- Interim directions by High Courts must be within jurisdictional limits and not pre-empt policy formulation by expert bodies
