JACOB PULIYEL VS. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Case Citation: 2022 SCC OnLine SC 533

Decision Date: 2 May 2022

Bench Strength: 2

Number of Opinion(s): 1

Aspect(s) of Privacy: Bodily Integrity, Autonomy

Legal Provision(s): Article 21 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (“Constitution”)

Case Status: Not Overruled

Case Type: Civil Writ Petition

“Persons who are keen to not be vaccinated on account of personal beliefs or

preferences, can avoid vaccination, without anyone physically compelling them to
be vaccinated. However, 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 to the object sought to be fulfilled.”

This document is part of the Privacy Law Library created and maintained by the Centre for Communication Governance at
National Law University, Delhi. It can be accessed at -

Jacob Puliyel vs. Union of India and Ors. (ccgnlud.org)

1
CASE BRIEF

In this case, the Supreme Court of India considered the issue of whether vaccine
mandates violate the right to privacy and bodily autonomy under Article 21 of the
Constitution.

The petitioner, who filed a writ petition before the Supreme Court, was a member of
the National Technical Advisory Group on Immunisation (“NTAGI”) and advised the
Government of India on vaccines. He sought, inter alia, directions that vaccine
mandates were unconstitutional and that the Government should release data for
the trials undertaken for the COVID-19 vaccines administered in India.

The Court held that bodily integrity is protected under Article 21 of the Constitution
and that no person can be forced to be vaccinated. It also held that the personal
autonomy of an individual encompasses the right to refuse medical treatment, and
recommended that all institutions review vaccine requirements in light of the
evolution of the COVID-19 pandemic. However, the Court also noted that the
protection of public health is a legitimate State aim and that the Government could
impose reasonable and proportionate limitations, including mandatory vaccinations,
on individuals in certain circumstances.

This document is part of the Privacy Law Library created and maintained by the Centre for Communication Governance at
National Law University, Delhi. It can be accessed at -

Jacob Puliyel vs. Union of India and Ors. (ccgnlud.org)

2
CASE SUMMARY

FACTS

In this case, the Supreme Court considered whether vaccine mandates violated the
right to privacy and bodily autonomy under Article 21 of the Constitution. The
Petitioner argued that vaccine mandates in the absence of informed consent were
unconstitutional and infringed rights protected by Article 21 of the Constitution.

The Petitioner stated in the Writ Petition that coercive vaccination interfered with the
principles of bodily autonomy and informed self-determination of individuals,
protected by Article 21 of the Constitution. The petitioner also argued that
non-disclosure of data from clinical trials for COVID-19 vaccines resulted in a lack of
informed consent, which meant that any vaccine mandates would be
unconstitutional.

The petitioner filed an Interlocutory Application seeking directions restraining all

private and public institutions from mandating vaccinations as a precondition for
accessing services, or otherwise penalising non-vaccinations. He also sought the
release of the segregated trial data (primary data) for each phase of the trials that
were undertaken for the vaccines administered in India.

ISSUES

A) Whether vaccine mandates violate Article 21 of the Constitution.

B) Whether segregated trial data from clinical trials for the COVID-19 vaccines
should be published.

DECISION

The Court unanimously held that though bodily integrity and personal autonomy are
protected under Article 21 of the Constitution, the Government is entitled to limit
This document is part of the Privacy Law Library created and maintained by the Centre for Communication Governance at
National Law University, Delhi. It can be accessed at -

Jacob Puliyel vs. Union of India and Ors. (ccgnlud.org)

3
individual rights in the interest of protecting public health. It also recommended that
all authorities, including all private and public institutions, review existing vaccine
mandates in light of reduced infection rates of COVID-19.

The Court also held that results of vaccine trials were published in line with statutory
requirements and were reviewed by expert bodies, and that primary clinical trial
data did not need to be disclosed. Nevertheless, the Court reiterated that relevant
data from ongoing and future clinical trials for COVID-19 vaccines would have to be
made publicly available, subject to statutory requirements and the protection of the
privacy of the subjects of the trial.

The Court stated that forceful vaccination would result in the violation of an
individual’s right to privacy, which is protected under Article 21 of the Constitution.
It held that the question of violation of bodily integrity did not arise in the present
case, since vaccination for COVID-19 was voluntary in India.

The Court also considered whether limitations placed by the Government on the
personal autonomy of individuals could be justified on public health grounds
pursuant to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The Court relied on the three fold test laid down in K.S. Puttaswamy vs. Union of
India ((2017) 10 SCC 1), of legality, necessity and proportionality. It held that any
lawful restriction of an individual’s bodily autonomy would have to meet this
threefold test.

It also held that bodily integrity is protected under Article 21 and that no person
could be forced to be vaccinated. The Court further held that personal autonomy
encompasses the right to refuse medical treatment in the sphere of individual
health.

This document is part of the Privacy Law Library created and maintained by the Centre for Communication Governance at
National Law University, Delhi. It can be accessed at -

Jacob Puliyel vs. Union of India and Ors. (ccgnlud.org)

4
However, the Court also noted that protecting public health was a legitimate aim of
the State and that the State could limit individual rights as long as the restrictions
conform to the requirements set out above. It noted that the State may have to
impose various measures to address the evolving pandemic and that specific
limitations could be challenged before the courts to assess their compliance with
K.S. Puttaswamy.

The Court held that in this case, vaccine mandates in light of changing transmission
rates after the Delta variant of COVID-19 were disproportionate. It recommended
that all institutions review vaccination requirements in light of the evolution of the
pandemic. The Court reiterated that its recommendations to review COVID-19
vaccine mandates applied only to the facts of the case at hand. It emphasised that
the executive was not prevented from undertaking suitable measures (including
mandatory vaccination requirements) in the interest of public health in the future.

This document is part of the Privacy Law Library created and maintained by the Centre for Communication Governance at
National Law University, Delhi. It can be accessed at -

Jacob Puliyel vs. Union of India and Ors. (ccgnlud.org)