Is there any proof that unvaccinated people pose a health risk: Bhushan

The Supreme Court began the last hearing in the case on Wednesday, questioning, among other things, the legitimacy of vaccine mandates imposed by states, including Delhi, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, and Tamil Nadu. Mr. Prashant Bhushan, standing for the Petitioner, Dr. Jacob Puliyel, a former member of the National Technical Advisory Group on Immunization, has previously stated that the requirements imposed are such that they infringe on persons’ fundamental rights.

Justices L. Nageswara Rao and B.R. Gavai agreed to hear the case on the merits in order to determine whether the vaccine mandates were proportionate to personal liberty. Without entering into the validity of the expert reports, Justice Gavai remarked on Wednesday that the limited problem would be to assess whether the policy choice taken by the concerned governments to impose mandates is based on any relevant data.

“The limited enquiry that would be permissible is as to whether the policy decision taken by the concerned Govt. is based on relevant data or not. All these expert reports, should we go into the correctness of this. There would also be reports per contra.”

It’s worth noting that, in addition to challenging vaccine mandates, the petitioner had also asked the Supreme Court to grant him leave to issue orders to the concerned authority to improve data from clinical trials and post-vaccine efficacy of COVID vaccines public, as required by international medical standards, and to end the coercive vaccination mandates issued by various governments.

He also requested that the Court overhaul the Adverse Events Following Immunization (AEFI) reporting system, which he argued lacked openness at the time. Another issue before the Bench was the non-disclosure of clinical trial data for vaccines given to children in India, as well as a stay on the coercive COVID-19 vaccine mandates imposed by various governments and private establishments for children aged 15 to 18.

Mr. Bhushan began by emphasising the seriousness of the vaccine mandates, which have hampered movement, denied basic necessities, and limited people’s ability to earn a living.

“Vaccine mandates are saying you will not be able to ration or be allowed to travel etc. if you don’t take vaccines, that you won’t get access to essential services if you don’t take vaccines.”

On the topic of trial data disclosure, he argued that just though the petitioner acknowledges that the COVID-19 outbreak required an emergency use authorization, that doesn’t mean that clinical trial data and data on vaccine side effects can’t be made public.

“The petitioner recognizes COVID was an emergency and recognizes emergency authorization, but it does not mean that clinical trial data must not be disclosed, or data on adverse effects are not published..poor adverse event reporting in India, children’s vaccines are given against scientific caution.”

Mr. Bhushan was concerned that by imposing vaccine mandates on residents, the State Government and even commercial entities were coercing them to get vaccinated without putting data in the public sphere.

“Disturbing orders are passed by some states and private institutions to force people to take vaccines, even without putting all information in the public domain, enabling a citizen to make an informed decision. Coercing citizens to get vaccines is unconstitutional.”

It was pointed out that, despite the fact that the Union Government’s affidavit clearly specifies that vaccines are voluntary, state governments have now made them mandatory, either directly or indirectly.

Prashant Bhushan also informed the Bench that he has not taken COVID vaccine.

“I believe people who are healthy will have only negligible effects due to COVID. I don’t know about the long term effects of vaccine. There is no study.”

Also Read: PM Modi will participate in a virtual meeting of the Quad Leaders