What is the common examiner trap about Polity in UPSC exams?

They may ask about the constitutional basis and confuse it with Fundamental Rights (like Article 21) instead of Directive Principles (Articles 41 & 47). Another trap is swapping the roles of different bodies, e.g., asking if the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) was directed instead of the Centre.

What should UPSC aspirants remember about Polity for Prelims?

1. Target this Data: The Supreme Court bench comprised Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta. 2. Target this Nodal Body: The Ministry of Health and Family Welfare and the National Disaster Management Authority (NDMA) were involved in the Kerala High Court order. 3. Target this Legal Point: The judgment is grounded in Directive Principles, specifically Article 41 (public assistance) and Article 47 (improvement of public health).

PolityGovernance

Take AI Challenge ▸

News 3 of 23

Supreme Court Directs Centre to Frame No-Fault Compensation Policy for COVID-19 Vaccine Injuries Under Articles 41 & 47

Q: Which constitutional articles, cited by the Supreme Court bench, form the primary basis for directing the Centre to frame a no-fault compensation policy for vaccine injuries?

Article 41 and Article 47, The judgment explicitly references Article 41 (public assistance in cases of sickness) and Article 47 (duty to improve public health) from the Directive Principles of State Policy to underline the state's constitutional obligation. Articles 21 and 32 relate to life/personal liberty and remedies for enforcing rights, which were not the core cited basis here.

Q: Consider the following statements regarding the Supreme Court's judgment on COVID-19 vaccine injury compensation: 1. The Court directed the continuation of AEFI surveillance and public disclosure of data as per its May 2022 order in the Jacob Puliyel case. 2. The judgment is based on the premise that the regulatory approval process for COVID-19 vaccines was unlawful and deficient. 3. The Court rejected the plea for a separate court-appointed expert body, citing existing mechanisms for scientific assessment of AEFI. Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

Both 1 and 3, Statement 1 is correct: The Court directed that the existing AEFI monitoring mechanism continue and data be placed in the public domain, referencing its May 2, 2022 order. Statement 2 is incorrect: The Court explicitly stated it does NOT proceed on the premise that the regulatory approval process was unlawful or deficient. Statement 3 is correct: The bench rejected the prayer for a separate court-appointed expert body in view of existing scientific assessment mechanisms.

Q: According to the article, how many cases of alleged vaccine-related deaths were raised in the various petitions before the Supreme Court?

Nine cases, The article explicitly states: 'Overall, nine cases of alleged vaccine-related deaths were raised in the various petitions before the SC.' The other numbers are plausible distractors but not mentioned in the text.

Q: What is the primary legal implication of the Supreme Court's direction for a 'no-fault' compensation policy in the context of vaccine injuries?

It allows compensation without the claimant needing to prove fault or negligence of the state or manufacturer., The core of a 'no-fault' compensation policy, as directed by the SC, is to provide relief without requiring affected families to undergo the onerous legal burden of proving negligence or liability (fault). This is distinct from automatically paying for any event (option C) or assigning criminal liability (option D).

Polity Social IssuesCORE

Target:UPSC GS-IIMPSCTeachingSSC GAPrelims HighMains HighStatic GK Link

10 Mar 2026

~2 min

Source: Indian Express

Key Data:May 2, 2022September 1, 2022Nine cases

Bodies:Supreme CourtMinistry of Health and Family WelfareNational Disaster Management AuthorityKerala High CourtIndian Council of Medical Research (ICMR)National Centre for Disease Control (NCDC)

Practice MCQs from today's news ▸

~2 min · Quick mode

What This Article Covers

1.The Supreme Court bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta directed the Centre to formulate a no-fault compensation policy for serious adverse events following COVID-19 vaccination.

2.The judgment emphasizes the state's constitutional duty under Articles 41 (public assistance) and 47 (improvement of public health) to aid families without requiring proof of negligence.

3.The Court clarified it is not questioning vaccine efficacy or regulatory approval but addressing the lack of a uniform redressal mechanism for families alleging harm from the state-led vaccination program.

The Big Picture

Prelims · HighMains · High

The Supreme Court has mandated the Central Government to establish a uniform 'no-fault compensation policy' for serious adverse events following COVID-19 immunization, drawing on constitutional principles. This landmark direction addresses a critical gap where families faced onerous burdens to prove negligence for vaccine-related injuries, shifting the state's role from a spectator to an active guardian of welfare.

Exam Lens

Quick Exam Facts From News

SC BenchJustices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta

Key Previous CaseJacob Puliyel vs Union of India (May 2, 2022)

Constitutional Articles CitedArticle 41 & Article 47

Number of Cases Before SCNine alleged vaccine-related death cases

1-Minute Revision

›SC Bench: Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta
›Key Previous Case: Jacob Puliyel vs Union of India (May 2, 2022)
›Target this Data: The Supreme Court bench comprised Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta.
›Target this Nodal Body: The Ministry of Health and Family Welfare and the National Disaster Management Authority (NDMA) were involved in the Kerala High Court order.
›Target this Legal Point: The judgment is grounded in Directive Principles, specifically Article 41 (public assistance) and Article 47 (improvement of public health).

Mastered this topic? Test your knowledge with a full MCQ quiz.

Practice exam-style questions, track your score, and strengthen your recall.

News Snapshot

⚖️

Judicial Mandate

The Supreme Court has directed the Centre to create a policy for compensating individuals who suffered serious adverse events after COVID-19 vaccination without requiring them to prove fault.

📜

Constitutional Duty

The judgment anchors the state's responsibility in Articles 41 and 47 of the Constitution, framing public health and assistance as primary duties, not discretionary acts.

🩺

Policy Context

The order stems from petitions, including an appeal against a Kerala High Court interim order, seeking a uniform mechanism for AEFI (Adverse Events Following Immunisation) compensation.

Detailed Analysis & Strategic Depth

Context / Background

The issue arose from multiple petitions, including one by parents seeking compensation for their daughters' deaths post-Covishield vaccination and an appeal by the Centre against a Kerala High Court order. The Supreme Court's May 2022 order in the Jacob Puliyel case had already underscored the state's duty to monitor Adverse Events Following Immunisation (AEFI) and make data public, setting the stage for this extended responsibility.

Core Analysis & Implications

This judgment redefines the state-citizen relationship during public health emergencies. By invoking a 'no-fault' liability framework, it acknowledges the collective societal necessity of mass vaccination while ensuring that rare, severe individual costs are not borne alone. It carefully balances scientific consensus (citing ICMR/NCDC studies finding no direct causal link) with ethical governance, ensuring compensation is not about assigning blame but about fulfilling a welfare obligation. The directive for continued AEFI surveillance and data transparency strengthens India's pharmacovigilance system.

Future Outlook / Way Forward

The Centre must now draft and notify a specific compensation policy, likely involving defining 'serious adverse events', creating an accessible claims mechanism, and establishing a funding corpus. This policy could become a model for future national vaccination drives. It also sets a precedent for how courts interpret Directive Principles (Articles 41, 47) as enforceable obligations in extraordinary circumstances, potentially influencing litigation around other public welfare schemes.

Key Facts at a Glance

SC BenchJustices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta

Key Previous CaseJacob Puliyel vs Union of India (May 2, 2022)

Constitutional Articles CitedArticle 41 & Article 47

Number of Cases Before SCNine alleged vaccine-related death cases

You've read the full analysis. Now test your understanding.

Practice exam-style questions based on this article.

Q1Static LinkageEasyUPSC, SSC, State PSC

Which constitutional articles, cited by the Supreme Court bench, form the primary basis for directing the Centre to frame a no-fault compensation policy for vaccine injuries?

Q2Statement-basedHardUPSC, State PSC

Consider the following statements regarding the Supreme Court's judgment on COVID-19 vaccine injury compensation:

1. The Court directed the continuation of AEFI surveillance and public disclosure of data as per its May 2022 order in the Jacob Puliyel case.

2. The judgment is based on the premise that the regulatory approval process for COVID-19 vaccines was unlawful and deficient.

3. The Court rejected the plea for a separate court-appointed expert body, citing existing mechanisms for scientific assessment of AEFI.

Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

Q3Data-centricMediumUPSC, SSC, Banking

According to the article, how many cases of alleged vaccine-related deaths were raised in the various petitions before the Supreme Court?

Q4Application/ImpactMediumUPSC, State PSC

What is the primary legal implication of the Supreme Court's direction for a 'no-fault' compensation policy in the context of vaccine injuries?

All 25 MCQs ▸

Read original article from Indian Express

You finished this topic

Practice 3 MCQs from this news Next Article

Explore Related Topics

PolityView Topic MCQs →Social IssuesView Topic MCQs →

PreviousIndiaAI Mission: ₹10,372 Cr Outlay for Sovereign AI, Targets 2 Lakh GPUs Under 7-Pillar Strategy Next Impeachment of CEC follows Article 324(5) Process, Essential Commodities Act Invoked for LNG Diversion, and SC Backs UCC as 'Most Effective Answer'

Related Current Affairs

Polity Current Affairs

SC Quashes NEET Protest FIRs Under Article 142, Orders Compensation Policy for Suicide Victims

Supreme Court used Article 142 to quash all FIRs registered against NEET protesters across India, while ordering compensation policy for families of students who died by suicide. This judgment underscores the balance between protest rights and criminal liability, and the government's commitment to address exam leak issues.

Polity Current Affairs

Supreme Court Directs FSSAI to Set Timeline for FoPL Phase-II High Fat-Sugar-Salt Warning Labels

The Supreme Court has asked FSSAI to provide a scientifically justified and clearly defined timeline for the second phase of Front-of-Package Labelling (FoPL) that warns about high fat, sugar, or salt in packaged foods. The court warned that without a deadline, implementation could be indefinitely postponed and also flagged gaps in label design and school-level nutritional literacy. The next hearing is scheduled for September 10.

Polity Current Affairs

Supreme Court Rules NCSC Cannot Issue Binding Directions Under Article 338

The Supreme Court clarified that the National Commission for Scheduled Castes (NCSC) has only recommendatory and advisory powers under Article 338, not adjudicatory powers. It cannot issue binding orders in service disputes. This ruling sets boundaries for constitutional commissions under Articles 338, 338A, and 338B.

Polity Current Affairs

Supreme Court Nine-Judge Bench Revisits 'Industry' Definition: Bangalore Water Supply Case (1978) Under Scrutiny

The Supreme Court's nine-judge bench is set to rule on the definition of 'industry' under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, potentially expanding or contracting labour protections for workers in hospitals, educational institutions, and government welfare schemes. This landmark decision could impact millions of employees and reshape industrial relations law.

Polity Current Affairs

Supreme Court Rules Police Cannot Independently Investigate Sex Determination Cases Under PC&PNDT Act

The Supreme Court has ruled that police cannot independently investigate offences under the Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994. Only the Appropriate Authority, a specialised body under the Act, can investigate. Police may assist but cannot take over the investigation, and any separate criminal offences (IPC/BNS) can be investigated independently. This clarifies a long-standing legal confusion and is crucial for understanding the enforcement mechanism of this social legislation.

Health & Education Current Affairs

NEET-UG Reform: Two-Stage JEE Pattern Under Active Consideration, Govt Tells Supreme Court

The Centre informed the Supreme Court that it is actively considering shifting NEET-UG to a two-stage format on the JEE (Mains & Advanced) pattern. The final decision will await recommendations from the Nandan Nilekani-led High-Powered Task Force on exam reforms. This is crucial for medical aspirants as it could change the entire exam structure and enhance security against paper leaks.

Polity Current Affairs

Rajya Sabha Passes Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Amendment Bill 2026, Raising Judge Strength to 38

The Rajya Sabha has cleared the Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Amendment Bill, 2026, raising the apex court's sanctioned strength from 34 to 38 judges, including the Chief Justice of India. The Bill replaces a May ordinance, but Opposition MPs questioned the ordinance route and highlighted the persistent diversity deficit in judicial appointments. This is a high-yield Polity topic for Prelims and Mains, with concrete data on SC/ST/OBC/minority/women representation and judiciary infrastructure.

Polity Current Affairs

Supreme Court Takes Suo Motu Cognisance of Delhi-NCR Sexual Assaults, Cites Article 21 and Nirbhaya Parallel

The Supreme Court has taken suo motu cognisance of recent sexual assault cases in Delhi-NCR, flagging lax patrolling and administrative failures that make public spaces 'zones of high risk'. The court invoked Article 21 (right to life and personal liberty) and drew a painful parallel to the 2012 Nirbhaya case, demanding accountability and a measurable response from authorities. This has major implications for law enforcement accountability, women's safety, and judicial oversight.

Start Today's Quiz(25 Qs)

Take Today's Quiz

25 Qs • 5-7 Mins

Supreme Court Directs Centre to Frame No-Fault Compensation Policy for COVID-19 Vaccine Injuries Under Articles 41 & 47

Exam Lens

Quick Exam Facts From News

1-Minute Revision

News Snapshot

Judicial Mandate

Constitutional Duty

Policy Context

Detailed Analysis & Strategic Depth

Context / Background

Core Analysis & Implications

Future Outlook / Way Forward

Prelims Flashpoints

Key Facts at a Glance