Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty, including Right to Health) mandates the State to protect public health and provide a structured compensation mechanism when state actions lead to grave outcomes, like in mass vaccination drives. Article 14 (Equality before Law) ensures that all citizens have equal access to relief, preventing inconsistent outcomes that would arise from individual, complex legal battles to prove negligence. A common misconception is that it's solely about Article 21's 'right to health'; Article 14's role in ensuring equitable access to justice is equally crucial.

The Union government initially suggested that aggrieved families should approach civil or consumer courts for compensation. However, the Supreme Court rejected this, emphasizing that vaccine injury claims involve 'complex scientific attribution' which would impose an 'onerous burden' on ordinary citizens to prove negligence. The Court highlighted that the State's responsibility cannot end at surveillance but must extend to providing fair compensation when a mass vaccination program is a State-led public health intervention.

This provision is crucial for balancing the State's welfare obligations (providing relief to victims) with its need to avoid being deemed negligent or at fault for every adverse outcome in large-scale public initiatives. By clarifying that compensation is not an admission of liability, the State can fulfill its duty under Article 21 without opening itself to endless litigation or setting precedents that could hinder future public health interventions. The implication is that it fosters public trust by ensuring support for victims, while simultaneously protecting the State's operational capacity and legal standing.

Currently, the most prominent application of no-fault liability in Indian law is under the Motor Vehicles Act, which allows victims of road accidents to claim compensation without necessarily proving the driver's negligence. More recently, the Supreme Court has directed the formulation of a no-fault compensation policy for serious adverse effects from Covid vaccines. It is NOT broadly applied as a general principle across all torts or injuries. For instance, it doesn't generally apply to medical malpractice (outside of specific vaccine cases), industrial accidents (unless specific statutes apply), or general personal injury claims where negligence still needs to be proven.

Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty, including Right to Health) mandates the State to protect public health and provide a structured compensation mechanism when state actions lead to grave outcomes, like in mass vaccination drives. Article 14 (Equality before Law) ensures that all citizens have equal access to relief, preventing inconsistent outcomes that would arise from individual, complex legal battles to prove negligence. A common misconception is that it's solely about Article 21's 'right to health'; Article 14's role in ensuring equitable access to justice is equally crucial.

The Union government initially suggested that aggrieved families should approach civil or consumer courts for compensation. However, the Supreme Court rejected this, emphasizing that vaccine injury claims involve 'complex scientific attribution' which would impose an 'onerous burden' on ordinary citizens to prove negligence. The Court highlighted that the State's responsibility cannot end at surveillance but must extend to providing fair compensation when a mass vaccination program is a State-led public health intervention.

This provision is crucial for balancing the State's welfare obligations (providing relief to victims) with its need to avoid being deemed negligent or at fault for every adverse outcome in large-scale public initiatives. By clarifying that compensation is not an admission of liability, the State can fulfill its duty under Article 21 without opening itself to endless litigation or setting precedents that could hinder future public health interventions. The implication is that it fosters public trust by ensuring support for victims, while simultaneously protecting the State's operational capacity and legal standing.

Currently, the most prominent application of no-fault liability in Indian law is under the Motor Vehicles Act, which allows victims of road accidents to claim compensation without necessarily proving the driver's negligence. More recently, the Supreme Court has directed the formulation of a no-fault compensation policy for serious adverse effects from Covid vaccines. It is NOT broadly applied as a general principle across all torts or injuries. For instance, it doesn't generally apply to medical malpractice (outside of specific vaccine cases), industrial accidents (unless specific statutes apply), or general personal injury claims where negligence still needs to be proven.