Current Affairs Topics Archive
International Relations Economics Polity & Governance Environment & Ecology Science & Technology Internal Security Geography Social Issues Art & Culture Modern History

SC asks Centre to draft 'no-fault compensation policy' for serious Covid vaccine side effects

March 10, 2026 6 min read Polity & Governance Social Issues GS2 (Judiciary Health Policy Rights) GS3 (Health Vaccine Policy)
On This Page ▼

What Happened

  • A Supreme Court bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta directed the Union Government to formulate a no-fault compensation policy for serious Adverse Events Following Immunization (AEFI) from Covid-19 vaccines
  • The judgment was delivered on March 10, 2026, in a writ petition filed by Rachna Gangu and Venugopalan Govindan — both petitioners alleged their daughters died due to adverse effects of Covid vaccines and sought compensation
  • The court held that a no-fault compensation mechanism is distinct from an admission of government liability — affected individuals can receive compensation without proving negligence
  • The existing AEFI monitoring mechanism will continue; surveillance data on vaccine side effects will be periodically made public
  • The court clarified that no separate court-appointed expert body is needed, given the existing AEFI scientific assessment infrastructure under the Ministry of Health
  • The no-fault policy does not bar affected individuals from pursuing other legal remedies

Static Topic Bridges

A no-fault compensation (NFC) scheme is a mechanism under which affected individuals receive compensation without needing to establish negligence or fault on the part of the manufacturer, government, or healthcare provider. This is distinct from tort-based liability, which requires proof of negligence. No-fault schemes are common globally for vaccine injury compensation: the US National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (1986) established the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP) — a no-fault administrative system funded by an excise tax on vaccines. India currently lacks a statutory no-fault vaccine injury compensation framework, unlike countries such as the UK, Germany, and New Zealand.

  • No-fault principle: Compensation awarded based on causation between vaccine and injury — not on proof of negligence
  • Distinction from tort law: Negligence (fault) → plaintiff must prove breach of duty of care; no-fault → causal link sufficient
  • US VICP (1986): Covers injuries from vaccines on the Recommended Childhood Immunization Schedule; funded by vaccine excise tax (~$0.75 per dose)
  • UK Vaccine Damage Payment Act, 1979: Lump-sum payment (£120,000) for severe vaccine injury
  • India: No statutory scheme exists; petitioners must file civil suits or writ petitions — this SC direction mandates creating one
  • Supreme Court's formulation: Policy will not constitute admission of liability; other legal remedies remain available

Connection to this news: The SC direction fills a legal gap — India currently has no no-fault vaccine compensation framework. The court is directing the executive to create one, exercising its power under Article 32 (right to constitutional remedies) to enforce the right to health under Article 21.

AEFI Monitoring in India — Institutional Framework

India's Adverse Events Following Immunization (AEFI) surveillance system has operated since 1988. The system was substantially revised and strengthened with national AEFI guidelines updated in 2005, 2010, and 2015. The system operates through a hierarchical structure: health workers report at the sub-district level → district and state AEFI committees assess causality → National AEFI Committee (under Ministry of Health and Family Welfare) provides final causality assessment. Technology platform: SAFE-VAC (Surveillance and Action For Events following Vaccination), integrated with COWIN for Covid-19 vaccine AEFIs and UWIN for routine immunization AEFIs.

  • AEFI system in operation since: 1988 (national guidelines: 2005, 2010, 2015)
  • Reporting: Serious AEFIs (death, hospitalisation, life-threatening, disability) must be reported immediately
  • Platform: SAFE-VAC integrated with COWIN (Covid) and UWIN (routine immunization)
  • National AEFI Committee: Expert body under MoHFW; conducts causality assessment using WHO Brighton Collaboration criteria
  • WHO classification of AEFI causality: Consistent causal association / Indeterminate / Inconsistent with causal association / Unclassifiable / Coincidental
  • AEFI Secretariat at ITSU (Immunization Technical Support Unit): Maintains surveillance database, follows up with states
  • SC's position: Existing AEFI mechanism is adequate — no separate court-appointed body needed; data to be made public periodically

Connection to this news: The Supreme Court's direction to create a no-fault policy builds on the existing AEFI framework — the scientific assessment infrastructure (causality determination) already exists; what is missing is the compensation mechanism triggered by a positive causality finding.

Article 21 and the Right to Health — Judicial Expansion

Article 21 of the Constitution guarantees the right to life and personal liberty. Through decades of judicial interpretation, the Supreme Court has expanded Article 21 to include the right to health as an intrinsic component of the right to life. Key cases: Parmanand Katara v. Union of India (1989) — established duty of hospitals to provide emergency medical care; Consumer Education and Research Centre v. Union of India (1995) — held right to health is a fundamental right; Paschim Banga Khet Mazdoor Samity v. State of West Bengal (1996) — right to emergency medical treatment. The petition in this case invoked Article 32 (right to approach SC for fundamental rights enforcement) combined with Article 21.

  • Article 21: "No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law"
  • Article 21 encompasses (via judicial interpretation): right to health, right to livelihood, right to education, right to clean environment, right to privacy (Puttaswamy, 2017)
  • Article 32: Right to move the Supreme Court for enforcement of fundamental rights — itself a fundamental right ("heart and soul of the Constitution" per Dr. Ambedkar)
  • Article 47 (DPSP): State's duty to raise level of nutrition and public health standard — supports health rights arguments
  • DPSP-Fundamental Rights interplay: Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980) — held that both must be read harmoniously; neither can destroy the other

Connection to this news: The petitioners sought compensation under Article 32 read with Article 21 (right to health/life). The SC's direction mandating a no-fault policy is an exercise of its Article 32 jurisdiction — directing the executive to fulfill its Article 21 obligations towards vaccine-injured citizens.

India's Covid-19 Vaccination Programme — Scale and Context

India's Covid-19 vaccination drive (launched January 16, 2021) was the world's largest vaccination programme. The programme used two primary vaccines initially: Covishield (AstraZeneca-Oxford formula, manufactured by Serum Institute of India) and Covaxin (indigenously developed by Bharat Biotech under ICMR partnership). By 2023, India had administered over 2 billion vaccine doses — achieving near-universal adult coverage. Covishield globally came under scrutiny in 2024 when AstraZeneca acknowledged in a UK court document that the vaccine can, in rare cases, cause Thrombosis with Thrombocytopenia Syndrome (TTS).

  • Covid-19 vaccination launched: January 16, 2021 (healthcare workers in Phase 1)
  • Vaccines used: Covishield (SII/AstraZeneca), Covaxin (Bharat Biotech/ICMR), Corbevax (Biological E), ZyCoV-D (Zydus), Covovax (SII/Novavax)
  • Doses administered (India): Over 2.2 billion by programme completion
  • Covishield/TTS connection: AstraZeneca acknowledged (UK High Court, 2024) that vaccine can "in very rare cases" cause TTS
  • COWIN platform: Used for registration, scheduling, and AEFI reporting for Covid vaccination
  • Drugs Controller General of India (DCGI): Under CDSCO (Central Drugs Standard Control Organisation) — granted emergency use authorisation for Covid vaccines
  • The Supreme Court petition specifically cited post-Covid vaccine deaths/adverse events requiring compensation

Connection to this news: The SC's direction is a direct response to cases where families allege vaccine-induced death or serious injury. With 2+ billion doses administered, even a rare adverse event rate translates to a significant absolute number of affected individuals — making a systematic compensation framework both necessary and administratively manageable.

Key Facts & Data

  • Supreme Court bench: Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta
  • Judgment date: March 10, 2026
  • Petitioners: Rachna Gangu and Venugopalan Govindan (families of alleged vaccine victims)
  • Key direction: Centre must formulate a no-fault compensation policy for serious AEFIs from Covid-19 vaccines
  • No-fault policy: Compensation without proof of negligence; not an admission of liability
  • AEFI system operational since: 1988; national guidelines updated 2005, 2010, 2015
  • SAFE-VAC: India's vaccine AEFI reporting platform (integrated with COWIN for Covid)
  • Covid vaccination launched: January 16, 2021 (India)
  • Total doses administered (India): Over 2.2 billion
  • Primary vaccines: Covishield (SII), Covaxin (Bharat Biotech/ICMR)
  • TTS (Thrombosis with Thrombocytopenia Syndrome): Rare adverse event linked to AstraZeneca-type vaccines; acknowledged in UK court, 2024
  • US VICP (1986): World's reference model for no-fault vaccine compensation
  • Constitutional basis (petitioners): Article 32 read with Article 21 (right to health/life)