Judicial Review of Vaccine Mandate Policies
- ByAdmin --
- 02 May 2025 --
- 0 Comments
The COVID-19 pandemic brought unprecedented public health measures, including vaccine mandates by governments and private employers.
However, these mandates triggered legal challenges, with courts called upon to balance individual rights against public health needs.
Judicial review of vaccine mandate policies in India and globally reveals important constitutional questions.
Relevant Legal Framework
- Constitution of India:
- Article 21: Right to life and personal liberty includes the right to health and bodily autonomy.
- Article 19(1)(d): Freedom to move freely throughout the territory of India.
- Article 14: Right to equality before law.
- Disaster Management Act, 2005:
Allows the government to issue binding guidelines for managing disasters, including public health emergencies.
- Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897:
- Provides powers to take special measures and prescribe regulations to prevent the spread of dangerous epidemic diseases.
- Provides powers to take special measures and prescribe regulations to prevent the spread of dangerous epidemic diseases.
- Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), 1948:
- Recognizes the right to health under Article 25.
Key Judicial Interpretations in India
1. Supreme Court's Stance: Vaccine Not Mandatory
- Jacob Puliyel v. Union of India (2022):
- The Supreme Court held that while the government can encourage vaccination in public interest, coercive mandates (such as denial of essential services or jobs) are not justified unless proportional and reasonable.
- The Court reaffirmed that an individual's right to bodily autonomy under Article 21 must be respected.
- The Supreme Court held that while the government can encourage vaccination in public interest, coercive mandates (such as denial of essential services or jobs) are not justified unless proportional and reasonable.
2. Proportionality Principle
- Any restriction on fundamental rights must meet the proportionality test, laid down in Modern Dental College v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2016):
- The objective must be legitimate.
- The means must be suitable and necessary.
- The measures must balance competing rights fairly.
- Vaccine mandates, therefore, must be proportionate and minimally intrusive.
Major Legal Challenges Against Vaccine Mandates
1. Violation of Bodily Autonomy
- Citizens argued that forced vaccination violates their right to make decisions regarding their own bodies.
- Reference: Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017), where right to privacy was recognized as a fundamental right under Article 21.
2. Discrimination Claims
- Certain groups claimed vaccine mandates discriminated against those medically unable or unwilling to vaccinate.
- Cited violations of Article 14 (equality before law).
3. Consent and Transparency
- Concerns raised about lack of informed consent and inadequate public disclosure of vaccine trial data.
- Emphasized under Bio-Medical Waste Management Rules, 2016 and Good Clinical Practices Guidelines, 2001.
International Perspectives
- United States:
- In NFIB v. OSHA (2022), the U.S. Supreme Court blocked a vaccine-or-test mandate for large employers, holding it exceeded federal authority.
- In NFIB v. OSHA (2022), the U.S. Supreme Court blocked a vaccine-or-test mandate for large employers, holding it exceeded federal authority.
- European Union:
- The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) in Vavřička and Others v. Czech Republic (2021) upheld childhood vaccine mandates, stating that public health interests can outweigh individual objections under certain conditions.
Government Arguments in Favor of Mandates
- Public Health Priority:
- Vaccines reduce disease spread and protect vulnerable populations.
- Vaccines reduce disease spread and protect vulnerable populations.
- Doctrine of Parens Patriae:
- The State has a duty to act as a guardian for citizens' welfare, particularly during emergencies.
- The State has a duty to act as a guardian for citizens' welfare, particularly during emergencies.
- Emergency Powers:
- Invoked under the Disaster Management Act, 2005, and Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897 to justify temporary restrictions.
Judicial Safeguards Suggested
- No denial of essential services based on vaccination status.
- Clear, transparent, and scientific communication about vaccines.
- Voluntary vaccination encouraged through incentives rather than coercion.
- Data privacy protections aligned with the upcoming Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023.
Conclusion
The judicial review of vaccine mandates reflects the delicate balance between individual rights and public health in constitutional democracies.
While courts recognize the necessity of vaccines to curb pandemics, they emphasize that mandates must be proportionate, lawful, non-discriminatory, and respect bodily autonomy under Article 21.
Going forward, governments must adopt health measures that are legally sound, transparent, and rights-respecting to ensure legitimacy and public trust.
RELATED Blog
0 comments