Better to err on the side of caution to ensure public health during pandemic, Tamil Nadu tells Supreme Court

State says the vaccine mandate, issued through a circular in November last, is backed by law

States like Tamil Nadu and Maharashtra in the Supreme Court on Tuesday justified their hardened stand to make COVID-19 inoculation mandatory, even at the cost of denying people their rights, by saying that it was better to err on the side of caution to prevent serious or irreversible harm to the public when there was insufficient information about the virus.

“It is trite that when there is not enough information, it is better to err on the side of caution to prevent serious or irreversible harm,” Tamil Nadu told the court.

The State said the vaccine mandate, issued through a circular in November last, was backed by law and designed to nudge the public into getting vaccinated to stop the spread of the disease.

Compulsory vaccination was meant to preserve not only the safety of the individual but also serve a greater purpose of ensuring the safety of others, the States argued.

They were responding to a petition that challenged vaccine mandates, including those that made vaccination a precondition for accessing any benefits or services.

The petition filed by Dr. Jacob Puliyel, a former member of the National Technical Advisory Group on Immunisation represented by advocate Prashant Bhushan, argued that these mandates were violative of the rights of citizens and unconstitutional.

Tamil Nadu, represented by Additional Advocate General Amit Anand Tiwari, contended before a Bench led by Justice L. Nageswara Rao that “these are policy matters and the court should exercise restraint”.