← All recent judgments
Supreme Court of India10 March 20262026 INSC 218

Rachana Gangu & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.

Bench of 2 · Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sandeep Mehta

Why it matters

Listen

Advocates representing COVID-19 vaccine-injury claimants can now cite this judgment to press for a structured no-fault compensation framework from the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare; until that policy is framed, the direction itself provides a constitutional anchor to resist dismissal of such claims on the ground that only negligence-based civil or consumer remedies are available. Respondent-side counsel should note the Court's explicit caveat that the direction is not an admission of State liability and does not displace existing AEFI committee processes.

Summary

Petitioners — parents of young persons who died or suffered serious injury shortly after receiving COVID-19 vaccines — filed a writ petition under Article 32 seeking constitution of an independent expert medical board, formulation of AEFI detection protocols, and grant of compensation. Connected writ petitions from the Kerala High Court (including Sayeeda K.A. v. Union of India & Ors.), where the High Court had by interim order directed the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare and the National Disaster Management Authority to frame an AEFI identification and compensation policy, were transferred to and consolidated with the lead matter.

The Division Bench disposed of the writ petition and all connected matters, declining to constitute a parallel expert body but directing the Union of India, through the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, to expeditiously frame a no-fault compensation policy for serious adverse events following COVID-19 vaccination. The Court held that Article 21 embodies a positive obligation of the State — not merely a negative prohibition — and that where grave harm is alleged to have occurred in the course of a State-led mass immunisation programme, affected families cannot be left without any accessible institutional mechanism of redress. Relegating claimants exclusively to fault-based remedies before civil courts or consumer fora was found constitutionally inadequate: proof of negligence in each case imposes an onerous burden, and a multiplicity of individual proceedings risks inconsistent outcomes and unequal access to relief, thereby undermining Article 14.

The Court expressly declined to adjudicate vaccine efficacy or sit in scientific review of the regulatory approval process — both of which had been upheld in Jacob Puliyel v. Union of India [2022] 3 SCR 471. It found the existing National and State AEFI Committees adequate for causality assessment and refused to constitute a court-appointed expert body. It reiterated the Jacob Puliyel direction that AEFI surveillance data be placed in the public domain transparently and in a timely manner. The judgment clarified that it does not constitute an admission of liability or fault by the Union of India, and does not foreclose any other remedy available in law to affected persons.

Key principle

Article 21 imposes a positive obligation on the State to provide an accessible, no-fault institutional mechanism of redress for persons who suffer serious adverse events in the course of a State-led mass vaccination programme; fault-based civil or consumer remedies alone are constitutionally insufficient in such a context, and their multiplicity risks violating the equality guarantee under Article 14.

Holding

Disposed of — the Union of India is directed to frame a no-fault compensation policy for serious adverse events following COVID-19 vaccination, as Article 21 requires an accessible institutional mechanism of redress beyond fault-based civil remedies when grave harm arises from a State-led public health intervention.

Statutes invoked

  • Constitution · Article 21
  • Constitution · Article 14
  • Constitution · Article 32
  • Constitution · Article 41
  • Constitution · Article 47
  • Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 · Section 164

Practice areas

constitutionalwritcriminal
AI-generated summary, written by Claude Sonnet 4.6 from the court's published judgment. Always verify the original before relying on the summary in court. Generated on 21 May 2026.