The Universal Health Organisation (UHO) has filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) before the Supreme Court of India, seeking judicial intervention to ensure the country’s Human Papillomavirus (HPV) Vaccination Programme complies with constitutional guarantees of informed consent, bodily autonomy, transparency, and accountability.
Filed under Article 32 of the Constitution by UHO Chairperson Dr. Amitav Banerjee through Supreme Court Advocate Shivam Raghuwanshi, the petition challenges the legality and constitutional validity of the programme in its current form.
The petitioner alleges that the rollout has proceeded without a lawful informed-consent framework, adequate disclosure of risks and alternatives, a transparent adverse-event reporting mechanism, or a vaccine injury compensation scheme. According to the petition, these deficiencies violate the fundamental rights of parents and minor children under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.
Principal Areas of Concern
The petition identifies five principal areas of concern. First, it points to the alleged absence of standardized written informed parental consent before administering the vaccine to minors. Second, it raises objections to school-based vaccination programmes, which the petitioner claims may create institutional pressure inconsistent with voluntary consent. Third, it notes the lack of a publicly accessible, India-specific Adverse Events Following Immunisation (AEFI) dashboard for the HPV vaccination programme. Fourth, it flags the absence of a statutory Vaccine Injury Compensation Scheme despite such frameworks existing in several other jurisdictions, including the United States and European nations. Fifth, it cites inadequate availability of consent materials and risk-disclosure documents in regional languages, which the petition argues could undermine meaningful informed decision-making by parents across India’s linguistically diverse population.
Constitutional Precedents
The PIL draws upon landmark constitutional principles established in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, Jacob Puliyel v. Union of India, and Aruna Ramachandra Shanbaug v. Union of India. The petitioner contends that bodily integrity, informed consent, and the right to refuse medical treatment form an integral part of Article 21.
The petition also references the Parliamentary Standing Committee’s 72nd Report from 2013, which examined alleged irregularities in the earlier PATH HPV demonstration project. It argues that similar concerns regarding informed consent must not be allowed to recur during the present nationwide rollout.
Relief Sought
The petition has sought several specific directions from the apex court. It requests suspension of the school-based component of the HPV Vaccination Programme until a legally compliant informed consent protocol is established. It further seeks the constitution of an independent expert committee to examine epidemiological data, vaccine safety, consent practices, and available alternatives. The petitioner has also asked for the establishment of a real-time public AEFI surveillance dashboard, notification of a national Vaccine Injury Compensation Scheme, and the formulation of a comprehensive Vaccine Consent Framework governing the vaccination of minors in India.
Speaking on behalf of the UHO, representatives emphasized that public confidence in immunisation programmes is strengthened rather than weakened when transparency, informed choice, and accountability are placed at the centre of public health policy. The petition submits that constitutional rights and public health objectives are complementary rather than conflicting, arguing that India’s vaccination programmes should preserve both individual rights and collective health goals.
The case raises significant questions about the balance between public health imperatives and constitutional safeguards, with potential implications for how vaccination programmes for minors are designed and implemented across the country.