What Happened
- The Supreme Court of India, on March 10, 2026, directed the Central Government to frame a no-fault compensation policy for serious Adverse Events Following Immunisation (AEFI) linked to COVID-19 vaccination.
- A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta delivered the verdict on petitions, including one alleging that two women died in 2021 after receiving the first dose of the Covishield vaccine due to severe adverse effects.
- The Court ruled that the existing AEFI monitoring mechanism shall continue and that no separate court-appointed expert body is necessary for scientific assessment of adverse events.
- The Court clarified that framing a no-fault compensation framework shall not be construed as an admission of liability or fault on the part of the Union of India or any other authority.
- The judgment preserved individual rights, noting it shall not preclude any person from pursuing such other remedies as may be available in law.
- Previously, the Central Government had told the Supreme Court that it cannot be held liable to compensate for deaths caused by adverse reactions to COVID vaccines.
Static Topic Bridges
No-Fault Compensation Framework — Concept and Global Precedents
A no-fault compensation framework is a legal mechanism that provides financial relief to individuals who suffer serious adverse events from a product or service — such as vaccines — without requiring the claimant to prove negligence or fault on the part of the manufacturer, government, or healthcare provider. The rationale is rooted in public health policy: mass vaccination campaigns serve a collective good, and individuals who suffer rare but serious adverse reactions should not bear the full burden of proving liability in civil courts. Several countries — including the US (National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act, 1986), UK, and Germany — operate such schemes for vaccines. India has lacked a statutory no-fault vaccine injury compensation scheme, making the Supreme Court's direction a landmark shift.
- No-fault compensation: relief without proof of negligence — claimant only needs to establish causal link between vaccination and adverse event
- Rationale: incentivises public participation in vaccination; recognises burden-shifting fairness in mass immunisation
- US model: National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP), established 1988 under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act, 1986
- India: no pre-existing statutory scheme; AEFI monitoring exists but without a compensation entitlement
- The Court's order does not admit Government liability — it mandates a prospective policy framework
Connection to this news: The Court's direction to frame a no-fault policy fills the legal vacuum in India's immunisation governance, where AEFI victims have had no clear entitlement to compensation other than filing civil suits — a practically inaccessible remedy for most affected families.
Adverse Events Following Immunisation (AEFI) — India's Surveillance System
An Adverse Event Following Immunisation (AEFI) is any untoward medical occurrence that follows immunisation and which does not necessarily have a causal relationship with the vaccine. WHO classifies AEFIs as vaccine-product related, vaccine quality defect related, immunisation error related, immunisation anxiety related, or coincidental events. India launched its AEFI surveillance programme in 1986 as part of the Universal Immunisation Programme (UIP). The programme relies primarily on passive surveillance — healthcare workers report suspected adverse events — with causality assessment conducted by national and state-level expert committees. A National AEFI Secretariat and a National Technical Advisory Group on Immunization (NTAGI) provide oversight. Reporting remains suboptimal, particularly from the private sector.
- AEFI definition: untoward medical event post-vaccination — may or may not be causally linked
- WHO AEFI classification: vaccine-product related, quality defect, immunisation error, anxiety-related, coincidental
- India's AEFI surveillance: launched 1986, passive surveillance system, national secretariat + state committees
- Universal Immunisation Programme (UIP): India's mass vaccination programme covering 12 vaccines for infants/children
- Covishield: COVID-19 vaccine developed by Oxford-AstraZeneca, manufactured in India by Serum Institute of India
- NTAGI: National Technical Advisory Group on Immunization — apex advisory body on immunisation policy
Connection to this news: The petitions arose from AEFI deaths allegedly linked to Covishield. The Court's order that the existing AEFI monitoring mechanism shall continue — while directing a new compensation policy — effectively recognises the surveillance system as scientifically adequate but the compensation side as legally deficient.
Right to Health and Article 21 of the Constitution
The right to health is not explicitly enumerated in the Indian Constitution, but the Supreme Court has consistently held — beginning with the Francis Coralie Mullin case (1981) and reinforced in Paschim Banga Khet Mazdoor Samity v. State of West Bengal (1996) — that the right to health is an integral part of the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21. The State has a positive obligation to provide basic health services. In the COVID-19 vaccination context, a Supreme Court bench in 2021 (In Re: Distribution of Essential Supplies and Services During Pandemic) held that no person can be forced to get vaccinated; vaccine mandates violate Article 21's bodily integrity protection. The current judgment on AEFI compensation extends this rights framework by recognising that when the State conducts mass vaccination campaigns, it must also address the health and financial consequences for the rare few who suffer serious adverse events.
- Article 21: right to life and personal liberty — judicially expanded to include right to health
- Paschim Banga (1996): State must provide emergency medical treatment as part of Article 21 obligations
- Bodily integrity: SC held in 2021 that vaccine mandates violate Article 21 (no forced vaccination)
- National Health Policy 2017: India's comprehensive health policy framework
- The new no-fault compensation direction: treats State-run mass immunisation as a public duty with corresponding liability to compensate the rare adverse outcomes
Connection to this news: The Court's direction reflects the evolving understanding of Article 21: the right to life encompasses both access to vaccination (public health) and protection from uncompensated harm arising from State-mandated or State-promoted vaccination campaigns.
Key Facts & Data
- Bench: Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta
- Petition: alleged two deaths in 2021 post first dose of Covishield vaccine
- Covishield: Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine, manufactured by Serum Institute of India
- India's COVID-19 vaccination drive: the world's largest single-country vaccination campaign (~2.2 billion doses administered)
- AEFI programme in India: established 1986 under Universal Immunisation Programme
- Court clarification: no-fault framework ≠ admission of government liability
- Existing AEFI mechanism: to continue; no separate court-appointed expert body needed
- Rights preserved: individuals may still pursue other legal remedies available in law
- Comparable global model: US National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP), 1988