Why Vaccine Mandates Are Necessary

The recent Supreme Court decision upholding the government’s current vaccination policy is to be commended. The court, however, held that the restrictions imposed by states and union territories on unvaccinated persons cannot be said to be proportionate as they sought to invade the bodily integrity and personal autonomy of a person under Article 21 of the Constitution. The court used the test of proportionality to examine these vaccine mandates. Proportionality test is a standard of review that is implemented by the state to check the violation of a person’s physical integrity and confidentiality.

misinterpretation of proportionality

Initially, the proportionality test requires any state action that violates individual privacy and autonomy to meet the following conditions. One, the action of the state must be sanctioned by law; Two, the proposed action must have a legitimate state purpose; and three, the extent of interference by the proposed State action should be commensurate with the need for such intervention. This essentially means that no other less restrictive measure should exist that could be employed to achieve the same legitimate state objective.

To the extent that states require partial or complete vaccination of individuals as a precondition for using public places, services, or public transportation for vaccines, they may face the framework of a thorough proportionality test. especially at a time when the state interest is as compelling as preventing the transmission of COVID-19 and the number of deaths. It is depicted immediately.

First, the ability of states to legislate and take effective measures on issues relating to ‘public health’ from entry 6 of the State List of Schedule VII to the Constitution. The Disaster Management Act of 2005 and the Epidemic Diseases Act of 1897 empower states to take effective measures to reduce losses during medical emergencies. As such, the actions of the states have legislative backing.

Second, the legitimate purpose of the state is clearly evident from the fact that vaccination can go a long way in preventing serious illness and reducing deaths among persons infected with COVID-19. In this regard, the Indian Council of Medical Research said that 92% of the deaths due to Kovid-19 in India this year occurred in uninfected persons. Any vaccine mandate that prompts individuals to vaccinate to prevent death or to prevent further mutation of the virus has a legitimate state purpose.

Third, the extent of interference by the State with the privacy and bodily autonomy of an individual in making vaccination a necessary pre-condition for availing certain services cannot be said to be inconsistent. While we acknowledge that the third stage of the proportionality test requires the court to make a value judgment as to which measures may or may not qualify as disproportionate, if we missed the fact that any less restrictive The measures have largely failed to achieve vaccination, which is at the forefront of our fight against the pandemic.

protect community interests

It is not unprecedented to enact a vaccine mandate to protect the community interests of society. In 1905, the US Supreme Court Jacobson vs. Massachusetts It was assumed that the city of Cambridge in Massachusetts could punish citizens who refused smallpox vaccination. In 1901, a smallpox outbreak broke out in the Northeast and Cambridge, and the state responded by mandating that all adults receive the smallpox vaccine or face a $5 fine. In 1902, Pastor Henning Jacobson refused to be vaccinated and pay the fee, claiming that he and his son had been harmed by prior vaccinations. Jacobson argued in state court that the law violated both the Massachusetts and federal constitutions. His claims were rejected by state courts, including the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court. Jacobson argued before the Supreme Court that “the compulsion to introduce disease into a healthy system is a violation of liberty.” The Supreme Court rejected Jacobson’s arguments, saying: “A community has a right to protect itself from an epidemic of disease that threatens the safety of its members.” This decision was soon reinforced when a separate issue of vaccinations—state law requiring children to be vaccinated before attending public school—came in. zuchat vs king in 1922. Justice Louis Brandeis and a unanimous court said that jacobson The U.S. had already established that a state could exercise its police power to provide compulsory vaccination.

In India, Justice John Marshall Harlan’s sentiments were echoed by the Supreme Court on prioritizing community interest over individual interests. Asha Ranjan vs State of Bihar (2017). In that case, the court essentially laid down a hierarchy for the situation when two fundamental rights under the same umbrella are pitted against each other. It was observed that community interests cannot be sacrificed at the altar of individual interests, especially in a situation where a fear psychosis is running through the community.

It is worth noting here that despite accepting the argument on community interest in Para 49 of the judgment and addressing the need to limit individual liberty in such cases, the Supreme Court declared the vaccine mandate unequal until then. until the infection rate is reached. stay low. This will inevitably have a direct bearing on India’s ability to equip itself and its citizens for further mutation of the virus, if any, in the times to come.

Arguments against a vaccine mandate may have the potential to be sustained if it does not prove that vaccines are medically necessary to prevent serious disease and reduce death in infected individuals. Should the virus mutate further, the presence of a class of unvaccinated individuals would have wide-ranging implications for an already burdened health system.

As a signatory to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, India is obliged to progressively take all possible measures under Article 12 to ensure that its citizens enjoy the “highest attainable standard of physical and mental health”. In this regard, it is only appropriate that states accelerate vaccination at a time when the infection rate is relatively low. This will not only reduce the burden on the healthcare system during more difficult times, but will also ensure that state health policies are proactive and not merely reactionary.

As for the physical integrity and personal autonomy of a person under Article 21 of the Constitution, if we do not accept the fact that such autonomy proceeds only on the guarantee of life, then we will forgive. In such a scenario, it becomes necessary for the state to protect the life and health of its citizens before the decisional autonomy of individuals, even if it requires the state to take the help of its constitutionally recognized police powers. .

Tanishk Goyal and Rishabh Singh are final year students of West Bengal National Forensic Science University, Kolkata and Faculty of Law, Allahabad University respectively. He can be reached at tanishk218110@nujs.edu