More Stories

Informist, Thursday, Sept. 10, 2026

 

--SC rejects PIL challenging Centre's Human Papillomavirus vaccine drive 

--SC: PIL on vaccine filed for ulterior motive, lacks bonafide 

 

NEW DELHI – The Supreme Court Thursday rejected a public interest litigation challenging the manner in which the Centre's Human Papillomavirus Vaccine programme is being implemented. The petitioner, Universal Health Organisation, had alleged that the vaccination drive violates constitutional guarantees of informed consent, bodily autonomy, transparency, and accountability.

 

"It is a question of the health of millions of our daughters, and you (petitioner) want to delay it (vaccination)," said a Bench led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant. "Your agenda is antivaccine," he said, adding that doctors should not come up with this kind of petition. This is a serious issue, the public interest litigation has been filed with ulterior motive and lacks bonafide, said the top court. 

 

Whenever there is a case of incorrect vaccination, ordinary rules of compensation will apply, said the court. There is no scientific background to say that death of people was because of vaccination, it said. "And now you are trying to derail another scheme. Please withdraw it (the petition)," it said.

 

Human Papillomavirus Vaccine is an injection that prevents cancers caused by Human Papillomavirus, including cervical, vaginal, vulvar, anal, penile, and throat cancers, as well as genital warts. The government runs a free, nationwide Human Papillomavirus vaccination campaign targeting adolescent girls. India's national programme uses Gardasil-4 vaccine at designated government health facilities, including primary health centres and government medical colleges.    

 

The petitioner had sought the court to suspend the school-based component of the vaccination programme until a legally compliant informed consent protocol is established. India's vaccination programmes should be implemented in a manner that preserves both individual rights and public trust, it said. The programme violates the constitutional rights of parents and minor children under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution as it has been introduced without a lawful informed-consent framework, without adequate disclosure of risks and available alternatives, without a transparent adverse-event reporting mechanism and without any vaccine injury compensation scheme.

 

The Delhi High Court is also hearing another petition filed by gynaecologist Sujata Mittal and others, challenging the government's nationwide rollout of Human Papillomavirus Vaccine without adequate study. In that case, the petitioners had raised questions over the data, efficacy and the requirement of the vaccine used by the government. The high court had refused to stay the administration of Human Papillomavirus Vaccine and asked the Centre, Indian Council of Medical Research, Central Drugs Standard Control Organisation and the National Immunization Technical Advisory Group to file their replies. On Jul. 29, the high court had asked the Centre and other bodies were to file replies within four weeks, and the petitioner to file rejoinder in two weeks. The court will hear the case on Oct. 29.  End

 

Reported by Surya Tripathi

Edited by Akul Nishant Akhoury

 

For users of real-time market data terminals, Informist news is available exclusively on the NSE Cogencis WorkStation.

 

Cogencis news is now Informist news. This follows the acquisition of Cogencis Information Services Ltd. by NSE Data & Analytics Ltd., a 100% subsidiary of the National Stock Exchange of India Ltd. As a part of the transaction, the news department of Cogencis has been sold to Informist Media Pvt. Ltd.

 

Informist Media Tel +91 (11) 4220-1000

Send comments to feedback@informistmedia.com

 

© Informist Media Pvt. Ltd. 2026. All rights reserved.