Public Health at Risk on ‘Right to Refuse’ COVID Vaccine: Madras High Court

- Advertisement -

Excerpt

A Division Bench led by Chief Justice Sanjib Banerjee and Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy heard a PIL filed for requirement of vaccination of persons who are either homebound or with serious disabilities. They expressed their opinion on ‘right to refuse’ Covid-19 vaccine as its administration includes larger public health interest. 

Facts

A report has been filed by the State through the Health Secretary. It appears that adequate measures have been taken to vaccinate persons with disabilities, particularly persons who are homebound. The State should try and persuade persons with awareness campaigns and scientific data to indicate the efficacy of the vaccines and the indispensable nature thereof in dealing with the present pandemic. Indeed, vaccinating oneself may not only be to protect oneself but also in the larger interest of public health. When such larger interest of public health comes into play and it is possible that a person who has not taken the vaccine may not reveal any symptoms but still be a silent carrier, it is doubtful whether the right to refuse to take the vaccine can be exercised in such circumstances.

Arguments

The State reports that there is also an element of reluctance in some quarters to take the vaccine. As vaccination of persons with disability is concerned, it was noted that appropriate measures have been taken by the State at rehabilitation homes, mental care centres and the like. However, there does not appear to be a plan in place for persons with disabilities who are homebound and do not have the ability or resources to travel, particularly in the semi-urban and rural areas.

Court’s observations

- Advertisement -

The observation was made after the State reported that there is reluctance among the general public to take the vaccine. The latest status report indicates appropriate measures having been taken or planned to be taken at rehabilitation homes, mental care centres and the like, there does not appear to be a plan in place for persons with disabilities who are homebound and do not have the ability or resources to travel, particularly in the semi-urban and rural areas. It is hoped that all persons with disabilities, irrespective of status and resources, are taken care of by the State in due course.

Court’s decision

The Court suggested that the State should try and persuade persons regarding efficacy of vaccines by conducting awareness campaigns and sharing scientific data. The order may be read alongside a recent decision of the Meghalaya High Court, holding that mandatory or forceful vaccination impinges on the fundamental right of citizens. It had suggested that people have an “informed choice” with respect to vaccination.


 

- Advertisement -

Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgment from courts. Follow us on Google News, InstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can subscribe to our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.

 

- Advertisement -
- Advertisement -

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

About the Author

- Advertisement -
- Advertisement -spot_img