How judgements of courts overruled vaccine mandate restrictions, uphold scientific findings

Spread the love


The judgement of the Bombay High Court of Judicature drew on judgements of other courts India not only to nullify vaccine mandate, but also overruled all associated restrictions and isolation of citizens at public places in India. The court delivered the judgement in a lawsuit seeking the prosecution of Bill Gates, Indian Government, and others on a case of a 23-year-old man who died immediately after taking AstraZeneca vaccine.

The court had entertained a petition from Kiran Yadav in a lawsuit seeking judicial pronouncement on Bill Gates, the Indian government, and others, to account for the death of a 23-year-old man on the same day he received AstraZeneca’s Covishield vaccine. The Indian court heard the case for the prosecution of Bill gates, Indian vaccine czar, Adar Poonawalla; Indian government and public health officials over the death of a 23-year-old man allegedly killed by AstraZeneca’s Covishield vaccine.

Kiran Yadav in the suit, Yadav v. Maharashtra, made references to many other court judgements in India, including COVID vaccines-related rulings including Dinthar Incident v. State of Mizoram and Others (2021), and Madan Mili v. Union of India (2021).

The courts in the various judgement admitted that “vaccinated people can also get infected with COVID and can spread infection, just as those who are unvaccinated,” therefore, ruled that “there cannot be any discrimination between those who are vaccinated or unvaccinated;” arguing that “Such discrimination would contravene Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Indian Constitution.”

The petitioner in the Yadav v. Maharashtra suit further cited certain cases and English common law which include Common Cause v. Union of India (2018) which in its judgement determined that: “[A]ll adults with capacity to consent have the right of self-determination and autonomy. The said rights pave the way for the right to refuse medical treatment … [a] competent person who has come of age has the right to refuse specific treatment or all treatment or opt for an alternative treatment …

“The best interest of the patient shall override the State interest.”

Another court in a judgment on Osbert Khaling v. State of Manipur (2021) declared:

“Restraining people who are yet to get vaccinated from opening institutions, organizations, factories, shops, etc., or denying them their livelihood by linking their employment … to their getting vaccinated would be illegal on the part of the State, if not unconstitutional.

“Such a measure would also trample upon the freedom of the individual to get vaccinated or choose not to do so.”

The English common law in the case Montgomery v. Lanarkshire Health Board (2015), held: “An adult person of sound mind is entitled to decide which, if any, of the available forms of treatment to undergo, and her consent must be obtained before treatment interfering with her bodily integrity is undertaken.”

The petitioner in the suit, Yadav v. Maharashtra, farther cited directive from Satyendra Singh, the undersecretary of the Indian Health Ministry, on October 8, 2021, which reaffirmed that vaccination remains voluntary, that the Indian government “has not formulated or suggested any policies for discrimination between citizens of India on the basis of their vaccination status,” and that no citizen can be forced to be vaccinated.

Yadav also made reference to a particular  Indian legislation, the Disaster Management Act of 2005, which stipulates  that state governments cannot formulate any rules that contravene the guidelines of the national government; nor can such prohibitions be circumvented indirectly, citing another Indian court judgement in Noida Entrepreneurs Association v. Noida (2011).

The suit Yadav v. Maharashtra also cited certain clauses in the Universal Declaration on Bioethics & Human Rights  of the UNESCO (2005), as in:

Article 3 on human dignity and human rights, which holds that “[t]he interests and welfare of the individual should have priority over the sole interest of science or society.”

Article 6, which holds that “any preventive, diagnostic and therapeutic medical intervention is only to be carried out with… prior, free and informed consent.”

Article 8 on respect for human vulnerability and personal integrity.

Article 11, which states that “[n]o individual or group should be discriminated against or stigmatized on any grounds, in violation of human dignity, human rights and fundamental freedoms.”

Yahav also accused Venugopal G. Somani, the Drug Controller General of India, and Randeep Guleria of the All India Institute of Medical Science (AIIMS), of participating in a “dishonesty and cheating campaign” and the “furtherance of [a] conspiracy,” by making the “false and misleading statement” that the COVID vaccines were completely safe.

She berated Somani and Guleria of relying a “one-line agenda to give wrongful profit to the vaccine companies”; citing Indian case law which stipulates that because “conspiracies are hatched on secrecy … no direct evidence is required to prove it. The offense can be proved from circumstantial evidence.”

Yahav also cited 81 research papers which made findings on the higher protection people with natural immunity have against COVID, more than people who are vaccinated; including the lower efficacy of the vaccines to protect people against COVID variants like the Delta variant.