What Happened
- A recent opinion piece argues that when the State strongly promotes mass vaccination as a civic duty — as it did during the COVID-19 immunisation drive — it must also accept responsibility for those who bear the rare but real costs of adverse effects.
- In March 2026, the Supreme Court of India directed the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare to formulate a no-fault compensation framework for serious Adverse Events Following Immunisation (AEFI) arising from COVID-19 vaccines.
- The Court noted in the case Rachana Gangu v. Union of India (2026 INSC 218) that India currently lacks a "uniform or structured policy mechanism" to provide redress to individuals who suffered serious adverse effects.
- The no-fault framework will not be construed as an admission of liability by the Union Government, and will not preclude individuals from pursuing other legal remedies.
- India already has an AEFI surveillance system in place since 1986, with district, state, and national AEFI committees — but these are medical-epidemiological bodies with no statutory compensation mandate.
Static Topic Bridges
Adverse Events Following Immunisation (AEFI) and India's Surveillance System
An AEFI is any untoward medical occurrence that follows immunisation and does not necessarily have a causal relationship with the vaccine. AEFI can range from mild reactions (soreness, fever) to rare but severe events (anaphylaxis, vaccine-associated paralysis).
- India's AEFI surveillance system was established in 1986 and operates through a three-tier structure: District AEFI Committees, State AEFI Committees, and the National AEFI Committee.
- The National AEFI Committee (under the Ministry of Health) assesses causality — whether an adverse event is linked to the vaccine or coincidental — using WHO-standardised protocols.
- The AEFI Surveillance Guidelines of the Government of India (2014) provide the operational framework.
- The critical gap: the Committee's findings are medical and epidemiological assessments, not legal determinations. There is no statutory entitlement to compensation flowing from a causality finding.
Connection to this news: The Supreme Court's directive targets precisely this gap — the absence of a legal bridge between the AEFI system's medical findings and any enforceable compensation right for affected individuals.
No-Fault Compensation: Concept and Rationale
No-fault compensation is a legal mechanism that provides relief to injured parties without requiring them to prove negligence or fault on the part of the responsible actor. The plaintiff need only establish that harm occurred and that it falls within the scope of the scheme.
- No-fault compensation exists in Indian law in the context of motor vehicle accidents (Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 163A provides structured compensation without proof of negligence).
- International vaccine compensation programmes operate on the no-fault principle: the US National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (1986) created the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Programme (VICP); the UK's Vaccine Damage Payment Scheme; and similar mechanisms in Australia, Japan, Germany, and Canada.
- The rationale: vaccination programmes generate a collective benefit (herd immunity) while imposing a rare individual risk. The State, which mandates or strongly promotes vaccination, is ethically obligated to socialise the cost of rare adverse outcomes.
- A no-fault framework also serves a public health purpose — it builds vaccine confidence by demonstrating that the State will not abandon those who suffer harm.
Connection to this news: The article argues that India's COVID-19 vaccination drive — the world's largest — created a moral and constitutional obligation to compensate the small fraction of individuals who suffered serious AEFI, justifying a no-fault mechanism as both just and prudent.
Right to Health and State Responsibility under the Indian Constitution
The Supreme Court has expanded the interpretation of Article 21 (Right to Life) to include the right to health as a fundamental component of a dignified life. This places positive obligations on the State in matters of public health.
- Article 21 of the Constitution guarantees the right to life and personal liberty; the Supreme Court in Paschim Banga Khet Mazdoor Samity v. State of West Bengal (1996) held that the right to life includes the right to receive health care.
- Article 47 (Directive Principles of State Policy) directs the State to raise the level of nutrition and standard of living and to improve public health.
- The National Health Policy 2017 aims for Universal Health Coverage (UHC) — ensuring that all citizens receive health services without suffering financial hardship.
- International frameworks: Article 12 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), ratified by India, recognises the right to the "highest attainable standard of physical and mental health."
Connection to this news: The demand for a vaccine injury compensation mechanism is grounded in constitutional and international human rights norms — the State's obligation extends not just to providing vaccines but to protecting those harmed by its immunisation programmes.
Key Facts & Data
- COVID-19 was India's largest vaccination drive: over 220 crore (2.2 billion) doses administered
- AEFI surveillance in India operational since 1986; current guidelines dated 2014
- Three-tier AEFI structure: District → State → National committees
- Supreme Court case: Rachana Gangu v. Union of India (2026 INSC 218) — March 2026
- No-fault motor vehicle compensation under Section 163A, Motor Vehicles Act 1988
- US VICP established under National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act, 1986
- Article 21 (Right to Life) + Article 47 (DPSP on public health) form constitutional basis
- India's Universal Immunisation Programme (UIP) covers 12 vaccine-preventable diseases