SC Directs No-Fault Compensation for Vaccine Adverse Events
In News
What Happened
Why It Matters
Background
History & Context
What Changed
- ▶
BEFORE: Victims of adverse vaccine reactions had to file tort or consumer claims, carrying the heavy burden of proving manufacturer negligence. NOW: The government must establish a 'no-fault' mechanism where compensation requires only a plausible link to the vaccine, not proof of negligence.
- ▶
BEFORE: The State distanced itself from liability, arguing vaccines were voluntary and adverse event rates were extremely low. NOW: The State holds a positive obligation under the Right to Health (Article 21) to provide structured redress for harms occurring during state-led public health programs.
- ▶
BEFORE: India lacked a dedicated national policy for vaccine injury compensation, unlike nations with established programs like the US or the UK. NOW: India is mandated to formulate a formal, centralized AEFI compensation framework managed by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare.
Prelims Angle
NCERT Connection
Practice Questions
Q1
Correct Statement(s)Which of the following statements is/are correct regarding the Supreme Court's ruling in Rachana Gangu v. Union of India (2026)? 1. The Court directed the formulation of a no-fault compensation policy, eliminating the need to prove negligence by vaccine manufacturers. 2. The Court ruled that the Right to Health under Article 21 imposes a positive obligation on the State to provide redress for harm caused during state-led public health interventions.