Indian court nullifies vaccine mandate, restores medical rights

Spread the love


  • Bill Gates, Indian Govt face prosecution over death of 23-year-old man after taking AstraZeneca vaccine

The Bombay High Court of Judicature has aligned with some other courts in the country in nullifying vaccine mandates in India. The court delivered the judgement in a lawsuit seeking the prosecution of Bill Gates, Indian Government and others over death of 23-year-old man after taking AstraZeneca vaccine.

A petitioner in India, Kiran Yadav, has filed a lawsuit seeking judicial pronouncement on Bill Gates, the Indian government, and others, to account for the death of a 23-year-old man after receiving AstraZeneca’s Covishield vaccine in the country. The petitioner approached the Indian court 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 perceived to be killed by AstraZeneca’s Covishield vaccine.

There have been inquiries into the long-term and controversial involvement of Bill Gates in India’s vaccine program.

Kiran Yadav had filed a criminal writ petition for murder, Smt. Kiran Yadav v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors  (herein referred to as Yadav v. Maharashtra), at the Bombay High Court of Judicature, over her deceased son, Shri Hitesh Kadve. The lawsuit was filed by attorneys Shivam Mehra and Siddhi Dhamnaskar of Mumbai.

Kiran Yadav had narrated that Shri Hitesh Kadve was coerced into being administered AstraZeneca’s Covishield vaccine on September 29, 2021, on the assurance of the safety of vaccine; he died that same day following adverse effects caused by the vaccine.

Kiran Yadav in her petition, alleged that Kadve died “due to act of willful commission and omission attributable to some public servants who are misusing their position to bring policies to help the pharma mafia and thereby responsible [for] mass murders.”

The petitioner protested that the victim, Shri Hitesh Kadve, was “unwillingly” forced to receive the vaccination on the “false narrative” that the vaccine was entirely safe, and because the State of Maharashtra imposed certain restrictions, prohibited the non-vaccinated persons from riding on railroads or entering retail spaces such as shopping malls.

The petitioner argued that the restrictions imposed on Maharashtra “are against the Central Government’s policy that, there cannot be any discrimination between vaccinated and unvaccinated people.”

Thed petitioner listed other defendants in the lawsuit to include the commissioner and director-general of the Maharashtra State Police, the Indian Central Bureau of Investigation and the principal secretary of the Indian Ministry of Health and Family Welfare.

Counsels to the petitioner, attorneys Shivam Mehra and Siddhi Dhamnaskar of Mumbai, further raised charges against Bill Gates and Adar Poonawalla, CEO of the Serum Institute of India, the world’s largest vaccine manufacturer by number of doses produced and sold.

The Serum Institute produces the Covishield vaccine, including over half of the world’s vaccines administered to babies.

Yadav, in the suit, is demanding damages and compensation of 1,000 crores (10 billion rupees, or $134 million USD), in addition to 100 crores ($13.4 million USD) interim compensation.

The petitioner also demanded the court to order lie detector and narcoanalysis tests on Gates, Poonawalla and others.

The petitioner noted that the Indian government admitted the Covishield vaccine may have harmful, and potentially fatal, side effects; she protested that the vaccine was administered despite this knowledge.

Judges of the Supreme Court of India was said to have sentiments in support of vaccines, and all adopting a pro-vaccine stance, which may weaken the lawsuit. However, the suit contained 265 pages, is perceived to have set extensive legal precedent it draws upon, from Indian and common law, challenging the legality of mandatory vaccination and other compelled medical acts.

The suit was also considered significant for the specific allegations against big names like Poonawala and Gates, who have been involved in deep controversy in India.

The judgement delivered on June 23, 2021, declared that “vaccination by force or deception, or through the introduction of restrictions on the non-vaccinated, is a violation of fundamental human rights and a civil and criminal wrong.

This judgment of the Bombay High Court of Judicature, nullified an order imposed by the state of Meghalaya which made it mandatory that vendors, taxi drivers, shopkeepers and other individuals must be vaccinated before resuming or reopening their businesses.

The Bombay High Court of Judicature, also ruled that while vaccination was “the need of the hour,” the vaccination policy of a welfare state “can never affect a major fundamental right, i.e. the right to life, personal liberty and livelihood.”

The court in Meghalaya had in a judgement, citing Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, clarified the right to health; the court pronounced that when such healthcare is provided through coercive means, it encroaches upon the fundamental right to privacy.

The court further referenced another Indian court judgement, Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India (2018), which held that the fundamental right to health is violated when individuals are deprived of their right to personal choice, bodily autonomy and integrity, and the overarching right to privacy.

The court in Meghalaya had further declared:  “[V]accination by force or being made mandatory by adopting coercive methods, vitiates the very fundamental purpose of the welfare attached to it. It impinges on the fundamental right(s) as such, especially when it affects the right to means of livelihood which makes it possible for a person to live.

“Compulsory administration of a vaccine without hampering one’s right to life and liberty based on informed choice and informed consent is one thing. However, if any compulsory vaccination drive is coercive by its very nature and spirit, it assumes a different proportion and character.”

  • Source: The Defender