The Supreme Court on Thursday pulled up the petitioner in a PIL concerning the proposed HPV vaccination programme, with the Bench questioning whether the petition was effectively seeking to oppose vaccination.

During the hearing, Advocate Shivam Raghuwanshi, appearing for the petitioner, clarified that he was not anti-vaccine and said his concerns were limited to the manner of implementation, monitoring of adverse events and availability of a compensation mechanism. He submitted that the Universal Health Organisation was a doctors’ watchdog organisation and that its members were doctors.

Counsel particularly requested that there should be a mechanism to monitor adverse events following vaccination and some compensation framework, referring to the fact that the vaccine was proposed to be administered to girls aged 14-15 years. He said he was not questioning the HPV vaccine itself.

The Bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana, however, questioned the basis for allegations linking vaccination to deaths and fertility-related consequences and cautioned counsel against making submissions without scientific material. The Court also indicated that where an adverse event is alleged, the ordinary rules of compensation would apply. The Court remarked:

Counsel agreed to withdraw the petition, reiterating that his only concerns were adverse-event monitoring and compensation. The Bench also cautioned that filing a PIL carries responsibility, observing that the petitioner cannot approach the Court merely on the basis of unsubstantiated claims.