Forced vaccination vitiates fundamental right: Meghalaya High Court

An interesting constitutional point was made out by the Meghalaya High Court on 24th June, where the two-judge bench comprising of Chief Justice Biswanath Somadder and Justice HS Thangkhiew held that forced vaccination vitiates fundamental rights. It opined that Article 21 encompasses within its fold, right to health, as a fundamental right. By that same analogy, right to health care, which includes vaccination, is a fundamental right. However, vaccination by force or being made mandatory by adopting coercive methods vitiates the very fundamental purpose of the welfare attached to it.

The court was hearing a PIL concerning orders issued by the State Government making vaccination mandatory for shopkeepers, vendors, local taxi drivers, etc before they can resume their businesses. The issue before the Court was "Whether vaccination can at all be made mandatory and whether such mandatory action can adversely affect the right of a citizen to earn his/her livelihood?" According to the reasoning of the bench, a harmonious and purposive construction of the provisions of law and principles of equity, good conscience and justice demonstrate that compelled or coerced vaccination has no legal standing, especially when there exists no reasonable nexus between vaccination and prohibition of continuance of occupation, making such acts ultra vires ab initio.

The notification by the State Government prohibiting freedom of carrying on any occupation, amongst a certain category or class of citizens, lacks legitimacy and is a colorable exercise of power. The welfare nature of the State is not for coercive negative reinforcement by seizing their right to livelihood, without any justification in the garb of public interest, instead, it should disseminate and sensitize citizens about the entire vaccination process, including the benefits and drawbacks, and to facilitate informed decision-making, especially when the beneficiaries are skeptical, vulnerable, and from disadvantaged groups in society. It should effectuate a social order as mandated under Article 38 by approaching the people directly to raise awareness without undermining its duty under Article 47 or abdicating its commitment to secure adequate means of livelihood under Article 39(a).

The Court has issued certain directions to the State Government to facilitate the process, such as signs of “Vaccinated” or “Not Vaccinated” at a conspicuous place in all concerned facilities and supervision by Secretaries of the District State Legal Services Authorities in the State to ensure that the Government Welfare Schemes for the marginalized section of the society are being properly and effectively implemented.