Today, on October 14th, India’s Supreme Court dismissed a Public Interest Litigation regarding Covid-19 vaccine side effects, labeling it as sensationalist and aimed at inciting public fear. The court emphasized the importance of vaccines in saving lives during the pandemic and encouraged rational discourse based on scientific evidence rather than baseless claims.
New Delhi: Today, on October 14th, in a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) that raised concerns about the side effects of Covid-19 vaccines, specifically during the pandemic. The bench, led by Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud, refused to entertain the plea, terming it an attempt to create unnecessary sensation and stir fear.
The PIL, which alleged that Covid-19 vaccines like Covishield caused side effects such as blood clotting, was swiftly rejected by the top court. The counsel representing the petitioner argued that similar lawsuits had been filed in other countries, including the United Kingdom. However, CJI Chandrachud responded firmly, stating that the petitioner should understand the potential consequences of not taking the vaccine, especially during a global pandemic.
Justice JB Pardiwallah, also on the bench, directly questioned the lawyer, asking whether he had taken the vaccine himself. The lawyer admitted to being vaccinated but denied experiencing any side effects. This admission further reinforced the court’s decision to dismiss the PIL as an attempt to create unnecessary alarm among the public.
Read Also: Chief Justice Recalls Prime Minister’s Concern During His Battle with Covid-19
CJI Chandrachud remarked, “Please understand what side effects would be of not taking the vaccine,” emphasizing the critical role vaccines played in combating the Covid-19 pandemic. The court made it clear that the PIL lacked substance and was merely an attempt to sensationalize the issue.
The petitioner cited examples of lawsuits in the UK, particularly a case where AstraZeneca, the maker of Covishield, admitted that its vaccine could cause rare side effects, including blood clotting. Despite these claims, the Supreme Court rejected the PIL, suggesting that if the petitioner wanted to pursue the matter further, he should file a class action lawsuit rather than an Article 32 plea.
“What is the use of this? This is just for other purposes. We will dismiss this,” CJI Chandrachud said, emphasizing the court’s reluctance to entertain baseless petitions aimed at causing public panic.
This is not the first time concerns have been raised about the side effects of Covid-19 vaccines in the Supreme Court. An earlier petition sought an investigation into AstraZeneca’s Covishield vaccine, particularly its side effects and risk factors. The petition called for a medical expert panel, led by the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) and supervised by a retired Supreme Court judge, to examine the vaccine’s safety.
Additionally, the earlier plea sought the establishment of a Vaccine Damage Payment System to compensate individuals who suffered severe disabilities or death due to the side effects of vaccines administered during the pandemic. It also urged the government to address the rising cases of heart attacks and sudden collapses, which the petitioner claimed increased post-Covid-19 vaccination.
The PIL referenced a UK case where AstraZeneca admitted that its Covid-19 vaccine could cause a rare condition known as Thrombosis with Thrombocytopenia Syndrome (TTS). This syndrome is associated with blood clotting and low platelet counts after immunization. The vaccine manufacturer’s admission in a UK court fueled concerns about the vaccine’s safety.
However, the Supreme Court of India maintained that the vaccine had been crucial in saving lives during the pandemic. In India, Covishield, manufactured by the Serum Institute of India, was the primary vaccine used, with over 175 crore doses administered nationwide. Despite concerns about rare side effects, health experts continue to emphasize the overall safety and efficacy of the vaccine in preventing severe illness and death caused by Covid-19.
Also Read: Bombay HC Urges Seriousness in COVID-19 Death Compensation Cases
By dismissing the PIL, the Supreme Court reinforced the need to focus on the broader public health benefits of vaccination, rather than succumbing to sensationalism. The top court made it clear that while side effects are a valid concern, the benefits of vaccines in controlling the pandemic far outweighed the risks associated with rare side effects.
The court’s ruling sends a strong message that baseless claims intended to incite fear or distrust in vaccines will not be entertained. Instead, the court encourages a rational approach, underscoring the importance of scientific evidence and medical expertise in addressing public health concerns.
The Supreme Court’s dismissal of the PIL serves as a reminder that during a global pandemic, vaccines play an indispensable role in saving lives. While concerns about side effects are legitimate, they must be addressed through scientific research and appropriate legal channels, not sensationalist claims. The ruling reaffirms the importance of maintaining public trust in vaccines, which have been instrumental in curbing the spread of Covid-19 and preventing countless deaths.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE