Pinnacle Court said that information shows vaccine doesn't pose any threat to children
04-05-2022
'Court cannot sit in judgement of leading scientific analysis on safety of paediatric vaccination'
Observing that the Court cannot sit in judgement of leading scientific analysis referring to the protection of paediatric vaccination, the Supreme Court has said that the choice taken by the Centre to vaccinate children within the country is in tune with global scientific consensus and expert bodies.
A bench of Justices L Nageswara Rao and B R Gavai also said that data shows vaccines don't pose any threat to children.
Experts in science may themselves differ in their opinions while taking decisions on matters associated with safety and allied aspects, but that doesn't entitle the Court to second-guess expert opinion, on the idea of which the govt has mixed up its policies.
The decision taken by the Union of India to vaccinate paediatric population during this country is in tune with global scientific consensus and expert bodies just like the WHO, the UNICEF, and therefore the CDC have also advised paediatric vaccination, the bench said.
The Union of India contended that paediatric vaccination is suggested by global agencies like the WHO, UNICEF, and also the CDC.
Expert opinion in India is in tune with global consensus in favour of vaccination of kids. We are informed that 8,91,39,455 doses of COVAXIN has been administered to individuals within the age bracket of 15 to 18 years as of March 12, 2022. The AEFIs reported are 1,739 minor complaints, 81 serious complaints, and 6 severe, it had said.
The apex court noted that in keeping with the Union of India, the said data would show that the vaccine doesn't pose threat to the protection of kids.
As regards the clinical trials children don't seem to be required to be involved in research that might be disbursed equally well with adults and further that, for the clinical evaluation of a brand new drug, a study in children should be allotted after the clinical trial clinical trials in adults, the bench noted.
The apex court was told that to avoid any risks, clinical trials were also conducted on a limited number of kids as per the protocol approved by domain experts.
It would not only be beyond our jurisdiction but also hazardous if this Court were to look at the accuracy of such expert opinion, supported competing medical opinions. As already stated, the scope of review doesn't entail the Court embarking upon such misadventures, the bench said.
The top court rejected the contention of the Petitioner that this Court needs to intervene in paediatric vaccination on the bottom that it's unscientific.
The judgement came on a plea filed by Dr. Jacob Puliyel, a former member of the National Technical Advisory Group on Immunisation, who has sought directions to also disclose post-vaccination data regarding adverse events.
