India Lacks A Structured Redressal Mechanism: Supreme Court Directs Centre To Frame ‘No-Fault’ Compensation Policy For Adverse Events From COVID-19 Vaccine

However, the Court even noted that India already has a structured AEFI surveillance mechanism in which expert committees at the State and national level investigate serious adverse events and undertake causality assessments. It observed that not every illness or death occurring after vaccination can automatically be attributed to the vaccine, and such determinations must be made through expert scientific evaluation.

The Bench was hearing a batch of writ petitions filed by the parents of individuals who allegedly died after receiving COVID-19 vaccines. The petitioners had sought the constitution of an independent expert medical board to investigate such deaths, greater transparency in reporting Adverse Events Following Immunisation (AEFI), and compensation for the affected families.

Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta observed, “…as matters stand today, India does not appear to have in place any uniform or structured policy mechanism to provide redress to individuals who suffer adverse effects following vaccination. This gap cannot be lightly overlooked, particularly when vaccination programmes are undertaken as public health measures under the aegis and authority of the State itself. The concern becomes all the more pressing in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, where immunisation was carried out on an unprecedented scale as a collective societal necessity. In such a situation, the State cannot be heard to say that those who experience serious adverse consequences must fend for themselves, without any clear or accessible avenue of relief. The absence of a coherent framework, therefore, calls for timely intervention, lest the rights of such persons remain only theoretical and without meaningful enforcement”.

“The Constitution does not conceive of the State as a distant spectator to human suffering, but as an active guardian of welfare and dignity. The Directive Principles of State Policy illuminate this vision with clarity. Article 41 speaks of public assistance in cases of sickness and disablement, within the limits of State’s capacity. Article 47 declares the improvement of public health to be among the State’s primary duties”, the Bench further observed.

Senior Advocate Colin Gonsalves appeared for the petitioner and Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General, Aishwarya Bhati, A.S.G., Senior Advocate S.P. Chaly appeared for the respondent.

The petitioners had contended that several individuals developed severe medical complications shortly after vaccination, raising concerns about vaccine-related adverse events. According to the post-mortem and medical reports cited in the petitions, the causes of death in different cases included conditions such as intracranial bleeding, intra-cerebral haemorrhage, thrombocytopenia, thrombotic thrombocytopenia syndrome, autoimmune encephalitis, and possible heart pathology, while in some cases the exact cause of death could not be conclusively determined though a link with post-vaccination complications was alleged.

Accordingly, the Court directed the Centre, through the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, to formulate a no-fault compensation policy for serious adverse events following COVID-19 vaccination. It further emphasised that the existing surveillance and monitoring mechanisms for adverse events should continue to function efficiently and that relevant data should be placed in the public domain transparently.

At the same time, the Court recognised that when the State undertakes a large-scale public health intervention such as a national vaccination drive, there may be a need for a compensation framework independent of proof of fault. Referring to international practices, the Bench observed that several countries operate vaccine-injury compensation programmes to provide expeditious relief without requiring victims to establish negligence.

“The vaccination program undertaken during the pandemic was itself an expression of these constitutional commitments. The State went above and beyond in order to create a vaccination scheme and the same undoubtedly helped save many lives. But at the same time, as the government data itself suggests, it cannot be brushed aside that the same vaccines also led to loss of life. In such a situation, it is not appropriate that the State shrugs its responsibility in coming to aid to those affected families who have lost their near and dear ones”, the Bench noted.

However, the Bench refused to create a committee, holding that a framework already exists consisting of National and State AEFI Committees which investigate into the deaths and injuries caused after the administration of vaccines. “In our opinion, this mechanism is adequate and there is no need to conduct any independent inquiry into the individual cases of deaths. In the absence of any material indicating that such mechanisms are nonfunctional or incapable of performing their role, it would not be appropriate for this Court, in exercise of its writ jurisdiction, to constitute a parallel body to undertake individual medical determinations”, it also noted.

The Court clarified that its directions do not imply any finding of liability or fault on the part of the Union Government or its authorities, and disposed of the writ petition and connected matters.

Cause Title: Rachana Gangu & Anr. v. Union Of India & Ors. [Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 218]

Appearances:

Petitioners: Colin Gonsalves, Sr. Adv., Manik Gupta, Satya Mitra, AOR, Amrish Kumar, AOR, Raj Bahadur Yadav, AOR, Sudarshan Lamba, AOR, Advocates.

Respondents: Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General, Aishwarya Bhati, A.S.G., Rajat Nair, Ishaan Sharma, Digvijay Dam, Tanvi Dubey, Arvind Kumar Sharma, AOR, Raj Bahadur Yadav, AOR, Padmesh Mishra, Vijay Awana, Arun Kumar Yadav, Riddhi Jad, Shivika Ma, Ketan Paul, AOR, Shivika Mehra, G.S. Makker, AOR, S.P. Chaly, Sr. Adv., Anu B., AOR, Shivam Sharma, Bibhuti Krishna, Vaibhav Choudhary, Prashant Bhushan, AOR, Shiyas Kr, Ria Yadav, Prabhu K N, Sureshan P., AOR, Nishe Rajen Shonker, AOR, Anu K Joy, Alim Anvar, Santhosh K, Adolf Mathew, Meenu George, Shishir Pinaki, AOR, C. Unnikrishnan, Pranav Krishna, AOR, Aljo K. Joseph, AOR, Rajnish Kumar, Rajesh Kumar, Mohammed Sadique T.A., AOR, Devika A.L., Monisha Mane Bhangale, Bijal Vora, Utkarsh Vatsa, Udit Bajpai, Prachi Dhingra, Ayush Raj, Pranav Sarthi, AOR, Chandragupta Patil, Ramesh Babu M. R., AOR, Vijay Kumar, Advocates.

Click here to read/download the Judgment