The Centre’s COVID-19 vaccination policy is “voluntary” and the question of any State intrusion into bodily integrity or personal autonomy of an individual does not arise, the Supreme Court said in a judgment on Monday.
In a 115-page judgment, a Bench led by Justice L. Nageswara Rao said nobody can, of course, be coerced to vaccinate. This would indeed be a violation of individual privacy. Personal autonomy of an individual involves the right “to determine how they should live their own life, which consequently encompasses the right to refuse to undergo any medical treatment in the sphere of individual health”.
“Persons keen to not be vaccinated on account of personal beliefs or preferences, can avoid vaccination, without anyone physically compelling them to be vaccinated,” the court agreed.
‘Reasonable limitations’
However, the buck stops when the individual’s refusal may lead to public harm. In that case, the State has an obligation to impose “reasonable and proportionate” limitations on individual rights.
“If there is a likelihood of such individuals spreading the infection to other people or contributing to mutation of the virus or burdening of the public health infrastructure, thereby affecting communitarian health at large, protection of which is undoubtedly a legitimate State aim of paramount significance in this collective battle against the pandemic, the government can regulate such public health concerns by imposing certain limitations on individual rights that are reasonable and proportionate,” the Supreme Court held.
The court said that as long as there was a risk of spreading the disease, restrictions could be placed on individuals’ rights in larger public interest.
