The Universal Health Organisation (UHO) has filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) before the Supreme Court of India seeking judicial intervention to ensure that the country's nationwide Human Papillomavirus (HPV) Vaccination Programme complies with constitutional guarantees of informed consent, bodily autonomy, transparency, and accountability.
Filed under Article 32 of the Constitution by UHO Chairperson Dr. Amitav Banerjee through Supreme Court Advocate Shivam Raghuwanshi, the petition challenges the legality and constitutional validity of the programme in its current form. The petitioner alleges that the rollout has proceeded without a lawful informed-consent framework, adequate disclosure of risks and alternatives, a transparent adverse-event reporting mechanism, or a vaccine injury compensation scheme. This, the petition argues, violates the fundamental rights of parents and minor children under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.
According to the petition, the present implementation of the HPV vaccination drive suffers from multiple serious deficiencies. These include the absence of a legally compliant informed consent mechanism and inadequate disclosure of risks and alternatives to parents. The petition also points to the lack of a publicly accessible adverse event reporting system and the absence of a statutory vaccine injury compensation scheme, despite such frameworks existing in several other jurisdictions.
The PIL draws upon landmark constitutional principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, Jacob Puliyel v. Union of India, and Aruna Ramachandra Shanbaug v. Union of India. The petitioner contends that bodily integrity, informed consent, and the right to refuse medical treatment form an integral part of Article 21. The petition also references the Parliamentary Standing Committee's 72nd Report from 2013, which examined alleged irregularities in the earlier PATH HPV demonstration project. It argues that similar concerns regarding informed consent must not be allowed to recur during the present nationwide rollout.
The PIL highlights five principal areas of concern before the Court. It points to the alleged lack of standardized written informed parental consent before administering the vaccine to minors. It raises objections to the conduct of school-based vaccination programmes, which the petitioner claims may create institutional pressure inconsistent with the principle of voluntary consent. It notes the absence of a publicly accessible, India-specific Adverse Events Following Immunisation dashboard for the HPV vaccination programme. It flags the lack of a statutory Vaccine Injury Compensation Scheme, despite international best practices in jurisdictions such as the United States and several European nations. It also cites the inadequate availability of consent materials and risk-disclosure documents in regional languages, which could potentially undermine meaningful informed decision-making by parents across India's linguistically diverse population.
The petition has sought several specific directions from the apex court. It requests the suspension of the school-based component of the HPV Vaccination Programme until a legally compliant informed consent protocol is established. It further seeks the constitution of an independent expert committee to examine epidemiological data, vaccine safety, consent practices, and available alternatives. The petitioner has also asked for the establishment of a real-time public AEFI surveillance dashboard, the notification of a national Vaccine Injury Compensation Scheme, and the formulation of a comprehensive Vaccine Consent Framework governing the vaccination of minors in India.
Speaking on behalf of the UHO, representatives emphasized that public confidence in immunisation programmes is strengthened rather than weakened when transparency, informed choice, and accountability are placed at the centre of public health policy. The petition submits that constitutional rights and public health objectives are complementary rather than conflicting. It argues that India's vaccination programmes should be implemented in a manner that preserves both individual rights and collective health goals.
The case raises significant questions about the balance between public health imperatives and constitutional safeguards. Its outcome could have far-reaching implications for how vaccination programmes for minors are designed and implemented across the country.
Comments