On Monday, the Indian Supreme Court dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) that claimed the COVID-19 vaccination had detrimental side effects, including blood clotting. The court expressed displeasure with the petition’s motivation, speculating that it was filed more for the purpose of causing needless controversy than to address any real legal or medical concerns.
A three-judge panel that included Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra and was chaired by Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud heard the case. The bench questioned the petition’s applicability and emphasized that the petitioners have to think about the repercussions of not having vaccines on hand during the COVID-19 outbreak. The court made it plain that, in its opinion, the plea focused on untested adverse effects rather than the important health and medical benefits of vaccination.
Legal representation for the petitioner contended that comparable cases pertaining to adverse reactions to vaccines had been brought in other nations, like the United Kingdom, where vaccine-affected individuals initiated class-action lawsuits. But instead of using Article 32, which permits anybody to petition the Supreme Court directly for a breach of fundamental rights, the bench advised the petitioners to pursue this issue through a class-action lawsuit.
Chief Justice Chandrachud highlighted that the PIL seemed to be more about making a splash than it was about finding a real remedy to any real issue. The court emphasized how crucial it is to comprehend both the wider effects of vaccinations and their pivotal role in the pandemic. The court reiterated its position that vaccine benefits vastly exceed any unverified claims of negative effects by rejecting the petition, particularly in light of the fact that immunizations have saved countless lives during a global health emergency.
Priya Mishra and other petitioners claimed that the vaccines could have harmful side effects such blood coagulation. But the court’s rejection suggests that there wasn’t enough evidence to back up these allegations for additional judicial review at the Supreme Court. If the petitioners thought they had a strong case, the bench advised them to pursue other legal options.
In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s decision to reject this PIL is indicative of its assessment that the petition lacked a solid foundation and was meant to cause unwarranted concern rather than advance a useful legal discussion. The court highlighted the value of vaccinations and their contribution to the fight against COVID-19, emphasizing that the advantages greatly outweighed any possible hazards.
SOURCE :
ETV BHARAT
