Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(SC) 239

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
VIKRAM NATH, SANDEEP MEHTA, JJ.
Rachana Gangu and Another – Appellants
Versus
Union of India and Others – Respondents
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1220 of 2021, Civil Appeal No. 3257 of 2026 [Arising Out of SLP (C) No. 16452 of 2023], T.P. (C) No. 1716 of 2023, T.P. (C) No. 2289-2294 of 2024
Decided On : 10-03-2026

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Colin Gonsalves, Sr.Adv. Mr. Manik Gupta, Adv. Mr. Satya Mitra, AOR Mr. Amrish Kumar, AOR Mr. Raj Bahadur Yadav, AOR Mr. Sudarshan Lamba, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, A.S.G. Mr. Rajat Nair, Adv. Mr. Ishaan Sharma, Adv. Mr. Digvijay Dam, Adv. Ms. Tanvi Dubey, Adv. Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, AOR Mrs. Aishwarya Bhati, A.S.G. Mr. Raj Bahadur Yadav, AOR Mr. Ishaan Sharma, Adv. Mr. Rajat Nair, Adv. Mr. Padmesh Mishra, Adv. Mr. Vijay Awana, Adv. Dr. Arun Kumar Yadav, Adv. Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, ASG Ms.Riddhi Jad, ADv. Ms. Shivika Ma Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, ASG Mr. Ketan Paul, Adv./AOR Ms. Riddhi Jad, Adv Ms. Shivika Mehra, Adv. Mr. G.S. Makker, AOR Mr. S.P. Chaly, Sr. Adv. Ms. Anu B., AOR Mr. Shivam Sharma, Adv. Mr. Bibhuti Krishna, Adv. Mr. Vaibhav Choudhary, Adv. Mr. Prashant Bhushan, AOR Mr. Shiyas Kr, Adv. Ms. Ria Yadav, Adv. Mr. Prabhu K N, Adv. Mr. Sureshan P., AOR Mr. Nishe Rajen Shonker, AOR Mrs. Anu K Joy, Adv. Mr. Alim Anvar, Adv. Mr. Santhosh K, Adv. Mr. Adolf Mathew, Adv. Ms. Meenu George, Adv. Mr. Shishir Pinaki, AOR Mr. C. Unnikrishnan, Adv. Mr. Pranav Krishna, AOR Mr. Aljo K. Joseph, AOR Mr. Rajnish Kumar, Adv. Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Adv. Mr. Mohammed Sadique T.A., AOR Mrs. Devika A.l., Adv. Ms. Monisha Mane Bhangale, Adv. Ms. Bijal Vora, Adv. Mr. Utkarsh Vatsa, Adv. Mr. Udit Bajpai, Adv. Ms. Prachi Dhingra, Adv. Mr. Ayush Raj, Adv. Mr. Pranav Sarthi, AOR Mr. Chandragupta Patil, Adv. Mr. Ramesh Babu M. R., AOR Mr. Vijay Kumar, Adv.

The court established that the right to health under Article 21 includes a State obligation to provide a compensation framework for adverse events following vaccination, emphasizing no-fault liability in public health interventions.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 21 - Right to Health - COVID-19 Vaccination - Petition seeks establishment of an independent expert board to investigate vaccine-related deaths and a compensation framework - The court acknowledges rights violations due to lack of redress mechanism for adverse events post-vaccination - The State has an obligation to ensure protection of life and health of its citizens, reinforcing the necessity for a transparent compensation policy - The absence of a coherent framework raises constitutional concerns and warrants institutional intervention. (Paras 7, 11, 17, 21, 38)

(B) Health Policy - Public Health Obligations - The court articulates that the State must safeguard health during public health interventions, and the absence of a compensation mechanism can undermine citizens' rights - The principle of no-fault compensation is affirmed as essential for vaccine-related injuries. (Paras 27, 28, 31)

Facts of the case:
Petitioners seek relief under Article 32 for deaths allegedly linked to COVID-19 vaccinations, underscoring systemic issues in vaccine governance and lack of compensation for affected families.

Findings of Court:
The court directed the Union of India to establish a no-fault compensation framework for adverse vaccine events, reinforcing obligations for public health.

Issues: Whether the absence of a uniform compensation policy violates the right to life.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the right to health extends beyond mere protection against deprivation of life, establishing the State's responsibility to provide remedial mechanisms for individuals affected adversely by public health measures.

Result: Petition disposed with directives for policy formulation.

JUDGMENT :

VIKRAM NATH, J.

1. Leave granted in SLP (C) No. 16452/2023.

2. The COVID-19 pandemic was an unprecedented period of suffering and disruption, which brought grief and hardship to countless families across the country. Many lives were lost, and many households were left to bear sorrow that cannot easily be expressed in words. The present proceedings arise in the aftermath of that difficult time. The Court approaches the issues raised with a deep sense of empathy for the human loss endured during the pandemic, while remaining mindful that the questions before it must be examined with care and within the constitutional limits of judicial determination.

3. At the outset, it is relevant to note that a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution, registered as W.P. (C) No. 1220 of 2021 ( Rachana Gangu and Another v. Union of India and Others ), was instituted before the Supreme Court by parents of young individuals who had received COVID-19 vaccination and are stated to have died thereafter. The petition sought, inter alia, the constitution of an independent expert medical board to inquire into such deaths, the formulation of protocols for early detection and treatment of adverse events following immunization (AEFI), and the grant of compensation.

4. Subsequent thereto, writ petitions raising similar grievances came to be filed before the High Court of Kerala. One such petition was Sayeeda K.A. v. Union of India and Others , W.P. (C) No. 17628 of 2022 (High Court of Kerala), wherein the petitioner sought directions for recognition of a death allegedly following COVID-19 vaccination as an AEFI case and for the grant of compensation to the dependants of the deceased. By an interim order dated 01.09.2022, the Kerala High Court directed the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare and the National Disaster Management Authority to formulate, within a stipulated period, a policy for identification of AEFI cases and for compensating the families of such deceased persons.

5. Aggrieved by the aforesaid interim directions, the respondents approached this Court in SLP (C) No. 16452/2023 challenging the interim order passed by the High Court in Sayeeda K.A. v. Union of India and Others . A Transfer Petition TP(C) No. 1716/2023 was also field seeking transfer of proceedings from the High Court to this Court as the same issue was pending adjudication.

6. With respect to W.P. (C) Nos. 13487/2022, 13573/2022, 11276/2022, 35180/2022, 37055/2022 and 38961/2022 pending before the Kerala High Court where similar prayers of compensation were made by the petitioners, the respondent Union of India filed T.P. (C) Nos. 2289-2294/2024 seeking transfer of these proceedings before this Court. Consequently, the Article 32 writ petition, the proceedings arising from the Kerala High Court, and the connected matters were listed together for consideration. For ease of convenience, W.P. (C) No. 1220 of 2021 is taken as the lead case. The disposal of this writ petition shall govern the disposal of all connected matters.

7. A brief summary of facts giving rise to each case is as follows:

Petitioner’s younger daughter, aged 18 years, received the first dose on 29.05.2021. Her platelet count dropped, she had severe headache, and had a tingly and numb feeling in her fingertips. Her condition worsened and the petitioner was informed that her daughter had been diagnosed with CVST-Cerebral Venous Sinus Thrombosis. She passed away on 19.06.2021

Petitioner’s elder daughter, aged 20 years, received the first dose of vaccine on 08.06.2021. She had high fever, arthralgia, headache and myalgia. In the following days, she developed Multisytem Inflammatory Syndrome (MIS-C/A) She lost her life on 10.07.2021.

ii. Sayeeda K.A. v. Union of India and Others in W.P. (C) 17628/2022 before Kerala High Court

Husband Abdul Nazeer M.H. who was otherwise in good health received his first dose of vaccine on 08.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(SC) 239

The court established that the right to health under Article 21 includes a State obligation to provide a compensation framework for adverse events following vaccination, emphasizing no-fault liability in public health interventions.

Cases Referred (6)

Related Judgments

Rachana Gangu VS Union of India - 2026 Supreme(SC) 239

Jacob Puliyel VS Union of India - 2022 Supreme(SC) 396

Pratibha Shinde President Lok Sangharsh Morcha VS Principal Secretary, Public Health Department, State of Maharashtra - 2021 Supreme(Bom) 140

Reepak Kansal VS Union of India - 2021 3 Supreme 692

Gyanaduttachouhan VS Additional Chief Secretary - 2022 Supreme(Ori) 4

Asif Riaz vs Government of India Rep. By its Secretary Ministry of Health & Family Welfare Nirman Bhavan, New Delhi - 2024 Supreme(Mad) 2498

Ajay Kumar VS State Of U.P. - 2026 Supreme(Online)(All) 782

State of Nagaland VS Moba Changkai - 2021 Supreme(Gau) 755

Susheela W/o Rajesh Kumar VS Union Of India - 2023 Supreme(Raj) 1215

Sibha S. VS Union of India, Rep. by Secretary, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare - 2021 Supreme(Ker) 481