On 10 September 2026, the Supreme Court refused to "entertain" a petition raising serious concerns about the government-run nationwide Human Papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination campaign for adolescent girls. The petition, filed by the Universal Health Organisation (UHO), sought suspension of the school-based component of the programme until a legally compliant informed consent protocol could be established.
During the hearing, the bench comprising CJI Surya Kant, Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana asked the petitioner: "Would you like to withdraw? Do you want us to comment on something?" It then added: "Don't ask us to make harsh observations. If petitioner members are doctors, it's a very, very serious issue. It's a question of the health of millions of our daughters. And you want to derail this."
The court orally observed that the plea had been filed with an ulterior motive and lacked bona fide.
What does "Don't ask us to make harsh observations" mean in Supreme Court language? It is, in effect, a coded threat: We will dismiss this anyway. If you don't withdraw voluntarily, we will dismiss it with harsh written observations. This is judicial intimidation—a "withdraw or we will make it worse" signal.
The matter was dismissed as withdrawn. The court did not decide on merits.
The Supreme Court did not issue notice to the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare. It did not question:
- The status of the compensation mechanism after the Rachna Gangu judgement
- The completeness of the informed consent form in line with the Delhi High Court's Master Haridaan Kumar v. Union of India judgement
The UHO petition alleged that the programme violates the constitutional rights of parents and minor children under Articles 14 and 21—introduced without a lawful informed-consent framework, without adequate disclosure of risks and alternatives, without a transparent adverse-event reporting mechanism, and without any vaccine injury compensation scheme.
The court seemed more focused on "derailment of programme" than on informed consent or vaccine side effects.
Is a government campaign spot-free and not liable to be criticised? How can the court say "don't derail" when it is known that vaccines cause injury?
Coercion techniques are already visible. The Delhi Lakshmi Yojana SOP states HPV vaccination is mandatory for welfare benefits. The Annapurna Yojana form asks for vaccination status. Is the court blind to these linkages?
The Supreme Court of India seems to go entirely by WHO recommendations. But WHO has been wrong many times—Covid protocols and vaccine guidance failures being recent examples. Concerns have been raised worldwide by medical practitioners about WHO's independence, with campaigns urging countries to exit the global health body. As critics note: "Seventy per cent of the funding of the World Health Organisation comes from commercial entities... As long as the WHO is getting industry funding or funding from vested interests, it should not be considered independent and the Indian government should ignore its advice."
How can the court dismiss a petition based on its own perception of WHO?
There is no compensation mechanism available. In the Rachna Gangu case, the Supreme Court asked the government to form a compensation mechanism, but that mechanism is nowhere in place. In its absence, the government is vaccinating the 9-14 age group when long-term efficacy is unknown.
If there is a case of incorrect vaccination, the court says "ordinary rules of compensation will apply"—but what are those ordinary rules? No notified HPV AEFI compensation rule even exists.
The Supreme Court's dismissal of the UHO PIL as "withdrawn" was not a decision on merits. By not scrutinising the legality of the informed consent form, or the seriousness of short- and long-term vaccine injuries, the court left petitioners feeling hopeless.
A government public health campaign cannot be above judicial review—especially when it involves 9-14 year old boys and girls, unknown long-term efficacy, known risk of injury, and coercive linkages to social welfare schemes. Such linkages themselves contradict the Supreme Court's own judgment on Covid vaccines, where it held that nobody can be forced to undergo vaccination.
The judiciary's role is to protect constitutional rights, not to shield government campaigns from scrutiny. When the court refuses to even hear the matter, it fails in that duty.
---
*Digital marketing and content management professional with keen interest in public health policies
Comments
Post a Comment
NOTE: Hateful, abusive comments won't be published. -- Editor