PIL in SC reds flags possible side effects of vaccines, questions why clinical trial data hasn’t been made public

Bitter boardroom battles of India Inc

The petitioner argued that he understood the need for a grant of Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) to vaccines. He, however, also submitted that while the EUAs were needed, there was no logical case for not disclosing clinical trial data. He submitted that in the interest of public health, it was imperative to subject clinical data to public scrutiny.

Bhushan argued that clinical data is not available publically, and not even under the RTI Act. The petitioner further pointed out that in a departure from healthy medical practices, adverse events have not been adequately reported and shared in the public domain.

In this light, the petitioner hit out vaccine mandates" issues by various states governments, where vaccine certificates were turned into pre-conditions for travel, work, rations, etc. The petitioner argued that coercion for vaccination is forbidden, illegal, and unconstitutional. He further reasoned that voluntary informed consent was an inviolable facet of vaccination.

Also Read: Tata vs Cyrus Mistry: Supreme Court to hear review plea against Tatas on March 9

Interestingly, the petitioner's counsel Bhushan also clarified that he, personally, had decided against getting inoculated. He submitted before the SC, "I have decided that I will not take this vaccine and it will cause me more harm than good. What I have studied in two years is that if you are healthy, the chance you get COVID-19 is virtually nil. The long-term effects of vaccines are not known."

Bhushan further submitted that there was evidence to suggest that vaccines may lower immunity. He also argued that side effects and adverse events often go under-reported due to the cumbersome process.

The hearing will continue in the Supreme Court on March 8. ​

Also Read: Supreme Court sets aside Punjab & Haryana HC order on 75% reservation for locals in jobs