Kalpana Mehta vs U. O. I. - 2015 Supreme(SC) 1315

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2015 Supreme(SC) 1315

DIPAK MISRA, PRAFULLA C.PANT
Kalpana Mehta – Appellant
Versus
U. O. I. – Respondent

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:- Mr. Colin Gonsalves, Sr. Advocate., Ms. Abhiti Gupta Advocate., Ms. Jyoti Mendiratta, AOR., Mr. Anand Grover, Sr. Adv. Mr. Mihir Samson Advocate Ms. Lorraine Misquith Advocate Mr. Purushottam Sharma Tripathi, AOR Mr. Mukesh Kumar Singh Advocate.
For the Respondent:- Mr. P.S. Patwalia, ASG Mr. Gaurav Goyal Advocate Ms. N. Annapoorani, AOR Mr. R.S. Suri, Sr. Adv. Mr. Charul Sarin Advocate Mr. A. Deb Kumar Advocate Ms. Sushma Suri Advocate Mr. D.S. Mahra, AOR Mr. C.A. Sundaram, Sr. Adv. Ms. Krishna Sarma Advocate Ms. Manisha Singh Advocate Mr. Navnit Kumar Advocate Ms. Vartika Walia Advocate for M/s Corporate Law Group Mr. Shyam Divan, Sr. Adv. Ms. Jaya Krishnan Advocate Mr. Riku Sarma Advocate Ms. Barnali Das Advocate for M/s Corporate Law Group Mr. Gourab banerji, Sr. Adv. Mrs. Nandini Gore Advocate Ms. Aditi Bhatt Advocate Mr. Kartik Bhatnagar Advocate Ms. Tahira Karanjawala Advocate Mr. Abhishek Roy Advocate Mrs. Manik Karanjawala Advocate for M/s. Karanjawala & Co. Ms. Hemantika Wahi, AOR Ms. Swati Vaibhav Advocate Ms. Preeti Bhardwaj Advocate Ms. Sanjana Ramachandran Advocate for M/s. Parekh & Co. Mr. Guntur Prabhakar, AOR Ms. Prerna Singh Advocate Mr. S. Udaya Kumar Sagar, AOR Mr. Krishna Kumar Singh Advocate.

ORDER

On 12th August, 2014, Kalpana Mehta v. Union of India, WP (C) No. 558 of 2012, order dated 12-8-2014 (SC) while dealing with the controversy at length, this Court had posed the following questions:

"(i) Whether before the drug was accepted to be used as a vaccine in India, the Druges Controller General of India and the ICMR had followed the procedure for said introduction?

(ii) What is the action taken after the Parliamentary Committee had submitted the 72nd report on 30.08.2013?

(iii) What are the reasons for choosing certain places in Gujarat and Andhra Pradesh?

(iv) What has actually caused the deaths and other ailments who had been administered the said vaccine?

(v) Assuming this vaccine has been administered, regard being had to the nature of the vaccine, being not an ordinary one, what steps have been taken for monitoring the same by the competent authorities of the Union of India, who are concerned with health of the nation as well as the State Governments who have an equal role in this regard?

(vi) The girls who were administered the vaccine, whether proper consent has been taken from their parents/guardians, as we have been apprised at the Bar that the young girls had not r

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2015 Supreme(SC) 1315

DIPAK MISRA, PRAFULLA C.PANTKalpana Mehta – AppellantVersusU. O. I. – Respondent

DIPAK MISRA, PRAFULLA C.PANT
Kalpana Mehta – Appellant
Versus
U. O. I. – Respondent