Supreme Court Rejects PIL Challenging Validity Of Nationwide HPV Vaccination Programme
The Supreme Court has rejected a PIL filed by Universal Health Organisation (UHO), through its Chairperson Dr. Amitav Banerjee, under Article 32 of the Constitution, seeking judicial intervention to ensure that India's nationwide Human Papillomavirus (HPV) Vaccination Programme is implemented in a manner consistent with the constitutional guarantees of informed consent, bodily autonomy, transparency and accountability.
The petition filed through Supreme Court Advocate Shivam Raghuwanshi challenged the legality and constitutional validity of the nationwide HPV Vaccination Programme as presently implemented.
"No special treatment for one case where adverse effects are seen. Please withdraw the PIL," Justice Joymalya Bagchi told the petitioner's counsel.
The plea alleges that the programme 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, thereby violating the constitutional rights of parents and minor children under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.
According to the petition, the present implementation suffers from serious constitutional and procedural deficiencies, including the absence of a legally compliant informed consent mechanism, inadequate disclosure of risks and alternatives to parents, lack of publicly accessible adverse event reporting, and the absence of a vaccine injury compensation framework.
The PIL relies upon constitutional principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, Jacob Puliyel v. Union of India, and Aruna Ramachandra Shanbaug v. Union of India, contending that bodily integrity, informed consent and the right to refuse medical treatment form an integral part of Article 21 of the Constitution.
The petition further refers to the Parliamentary Standing Committee's 72nd Report (2013), which examined alleged irregularities in the earlier PATH HPV demonstration project, and argues that similar concerns regarding informed consent must not be allowed to recur during the present nationwide rollout.
Issues highlighted before Supreme Court are:
a. The alleged absence of standardized written informed parental consent before vaccination.
b. The conduct of school-based vaccination programmes which, according to the petitioner, may create institutional pressure inconsistent with voluntary consent;
c. Lack of a publicly accessible India-specific Adverse Events Following Immunisation (AEFI) dashboard for the HPV vaccination programme;
d. Absence of a statutory Vaccine Injury Compensation Scheme despite international practices in several jurisdictions;
e. Inadequate availability of consent material in regional languages, potentially affecting meaningful informed decision-making by parents.
The PIL accordingly prayed for:
i. Suspension of the school-based component of the HPV Vaccination Programme until a legally compliant informed consent protocol is established;
ii. Constitution of an independent expert committee to examine epidemiological data, vaccine safety, consent practices and available alternatives;
iii. Establishment of a real-time public AEFI surveillance dashboard;
iv. Notification of a national Vaccine Injury Compensation Scheme; and Formulation of a comprehensive Vaccine Consent Framework governing vaccination of minors in India.
The petition submits that constitutional rights and public health objectives are complementary rather than conflicting, and that India's vaccination programmes should be implemented in a manner that preserves both individual rights and public trust.
Case Title: UNIVERSAL HEALTH ORGANISATION Vs UNION OF INDIA
Bench: CJI Kant, Justice Bagchi and Justice Mohana
Hearing Date: September 10, 2026