Legal Reasoning Questions for CLAT | QB Set 51

The Supreme Court of India recently directed the Union Government to frame a No-Fault Compensation Policy to address serious adverse effects following COVID-19 vaccination. The Court noted that India currently lacks a uniform mechanism to provide compensation to individuals who suffer severe health consequences after vaccination undertaken as part of a national public health programme.

The case arose from several petitions filed by families who alleged that their relatives developed serious medical conditions or died after receiving the COVID-19 vaccine. One petition involved a young girl who developed Cerebral Venous Sinus Thrombosis (CVST) after vaccination and later died. Other petitions described cases where individuals reportedly developed severe illnesses such as Multisystem Inflammatory Syndrome, heart complications, or paralysis.

The Court clarified that the purpose of the proceedings was not to examine the scientific efficacy of vaccines or the regulatory approval process. Scientific institutions such as the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) and the National Centre for Disease Control (NCDC) have affirmed that COVID-19 vaccines are safe and that serious adverse effects are extremely rare. Instead, the Court focused on the constitutional question of whether the absence of a structured compensation framework violates the Right to Life under Article 21 of the Constitution.

The Court observed that Article 21 imposes positive obligations on the State, including the duty to protect health and ensure institutional support where serious harm occurs during State-led public health interventions. Requiring affected families to prove negligence in civil courts would impose a heavy burden and could lead to unequal access to justice.

Referring to no-fault vaccine compensation schemes in countries such as Australia, Japan, and the United Kingdom, the Court concluded that India should adopt a similar framework. It therefore directed the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare to formulate and publish a no-fault compensation policy while continuing transparent monitoring of adverse events following immunisation.

1. What was the primary reason the Supreme Court directed the Union Government to frame a no-fault compensation policy?

A. To determine whether vaccines were scientifically unsafe
B. To punish vaccine manufacturers for adverse reactions
C. To replace existing vaccination programmes
D. To address the absence of a uniform compensation mechanism for serious vaccine-related adverse events

Answer: D

2. According to the passage, which constitutional provision formed the basis of the Court’s concern?

A. Article 14
B. Article 19
C. Article 21
D. Article 32

Answer: C

3. What did the Court clarify regarding its role in the case?

A. It was not reviewing vaccine efficacy or scientific approval processes
B. It intended to ban COVID-19 vaccines across India
C. It sought to conduct scientific trials on vaccines
D. It would determine the medical cause of each alleged death

Answer: A

4. Why did the Court consider negligence-based litigation inadequate for vaccine injury claims?

A. It would reduce vaccination rates
B. It would require scientific trials in every case
C. It would transfer liability to hospitals only
D. It would impose a heavy burden on families and lead to inconsistent outcomes

Answer: D

5. Which of the following countries was mentioned as having a vaccine injury compensation framework?

A. Brazil
B. Japan
C. South Africa
D. Mexico

Answer: B