Overriding India's constitutional sovereignty? Citizens urge PM to reject WHO IHR amendments

By A Representative 

A group of concerned Indian citizens, including medical professionals and activists, has sent an urgent appeal to Prime Minister Narendra Modi, urging him to reject proposed amendments to the International Health Regulations (IHR) before the ratification deadline of July 19, 2025. 

The signatories express deep concern that the amendments would grant the World Health Organization (WHO) "unduly increased authority over national health decisions" and could potentially override India's constitutional sovereignty. They highlight that these amendments are being pursued in parallel with the World Pandemic Treaty, with both documents reinforcing each other to strengthen clauses that would give the WHO the power to direct sovereign national governments.

The letter, dated July 14, 2025, emphasizes that India has a strong legacy of managing public health challenges and should not surrender its sovereign health decisions to an unelected external body without full safeguards and democratic accountability. 

Key concerns raised include the erosion of sovereignty by binding India to WHO-declared health emergencies without parliamentary or state involvement, the absence of public and parliamentary debate on such far-reaching changes, and the potential threat to constitutional rights, as public health falls under the State List. 

The signatories also point out that a uniform, top-down health mechanism may not suit India's diverse socio-economic realities and could disproportionately burden vulnerable communities. They are requesting the Prime Minister to publicly state India's rejection of the amendments, organize a comprehensive parliamentary debate and vote, and ensure India does not endorse the amendments by the deadline unless changes are made that respect India's Constitution and sovereignty. Some signatories also suggest that India should be willing to exit the WHO.

An attached document outlines ten reasons for rejection, including concerns over the new definition of "relevant health products" which excludes natural solutions, the WHO Director-General's unchecked power to declare a "pandemic emergency," the financial implications for member states, and the improper addition of Article 44bis concerning a "Coordinating Financial Mechanism". 

Other reasons include the Director-General's failure to properly submit the final version of the amendments with adequate notice, the unacceptable prospect of quarantining healthy people, the forced application of "health measures" on conveyance operators, the obligation for nations to enact domestic legislation to implement the amendments, the WHO's "money-making racket" concerning access to health products, and the violation of human rights by authorizing nations to compel travelers to undergo vaccination or other prophylaxis. 

The letter is copied to the Union Minister for Health and Family Welfare and all Members of Parliament.