Summary-India-VaxMandateJudgements

Summary-India-VaxMandateJudgements

Summary of Judgements: India

Re: Judgements against Mandatory Vaccination in India

 

Back to All Cases

 

Corona Cases received this summary of 6 recent court Judgements from Lawyer Dipali Ohja upholding the sanctity of bodily autonomy against the vaccine mandates. They ruled that vaccine coercion is illegal and to stop discrimination between vaccinated & un-vaccinated people.

Jan 3, 2022


1. In Re: Dinthar Incident Aizawl Vs. State of Mizoram 2021 SCC OnLineGau 1313,

the Division Bench of Hon’ble Gauhati High Court vide its order dated 02.07.2021, has categorically held as follows:

“14. It has been brought to our notice that even persons who have been vaccinated can still be infected with the covid virus, which would in turn imply that vaccinated persons who are covid positive, can also spread the said virus to others. It is not the case of the State respondents that vaccinated persons cannot be infected with the covid virus or are incapable of spreading the virus. Thus, even a vaccinated infected covid person can be a super spreader. If vaccinated and un-vaccinated persons can be infected by the covid virus and if they can both be spreaders of the virus, the restriction placed only upon the un-vaccinated persons, debarring them from earning their livelihood or leaving their houses to obtain essential items is unjustified, grossly unreasonable and arbitrary.”

2. OsbertKhaling Vs State of Manipur 2021 SCC OnLine Mani 234

The High Court of Manipur at Imphal, vide its Order dated 13.7.2021 in OsbertKhaling Vs State of Manipur 2021 SCC OnLine Mani 234, held that, the State cannot seek to impose conditions upon the citizens so as to compel them to get vaccinated, be it by holding out a threat or by putting them at a disadvantage for failing to get vaccinated. Restraining people who are yet to get vaccinated from opening institutions, organizations, factories, shops, etc., or denying them their livelihood by linking their employment, be it NREGA job card holders or workers in Government or private projects, to their getting vaccinated would be illegal on the part of the State, if not unconstitutional. Such a measure would also trample upon the freedom of the individual to get vaccinated or choose not to do so. A copy of the order dated 13.7.2021 is attached.

3. Madan Mili Vs. UOI 2021 SCC OnLineGau 1503,

The High Court of Guwahati, Itanagar Bench, vide its Order dated 19.07.2021 in Madan Mili Vs. UOI 2021 SCC OnLineGau 1503, held that there was no evidence available either in the record or in the public domain that Covid-19 vaccinated persons cannot be infected with Covid-19 virus, or he/she cannot be a carrier of a Covid-19 virus and consequently, a spreader of Covid-19 virus. In so far as the spread of Covid-19 virus to others is concerned, the Covid-19 vaccinated and unvaccinated person or persons are the same. With regard to the contention of the learned Additional Advocate General that the State Government can make restrictions curtailing the Fundamental Rights of the citizens under the Disaster Management Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”), by way of the SOP, the same in considered view of the Court is clearly not sustainable, as the said clauses in the SOP which are in issue in the present case cannot be said to be reasonable restrictions made in terms of Article 19(6). The requirement of Article 19(6) of the Constitution is that the restriction has to be made in the form of a law and not by way of an executive instruction. The High Court went on to hold that the action of the State was in violation of right to freely move anywhere as provided under Article 19 and the state action was not reasonable one as required by Article 19. The relevant para reads thus;

“13. In the instant case, the classification sought to be made between the vaccinated and unvaccinated persons for Covid-19 by Clause 11 of the Order dated 30.06.2021 for the purpose of issuing a temporary permit for developmental works in both public and private sector in the State of Arunachal Pradesh is undoubtedly to contain Covid-19 pandemic and its further spread in the State of Arunachal Pradesh. There is no evidence available either in the record or in the public domain that Covid-19 vaccinated persons cannot be infected with Covid-19 virus, or he/she cannot be a carrier of a Covid-19 virus and consequently, a spreader of Covid-19 virus. In so far as the spread of Covid-19 Virus to others is concerned, the Covid-19 vaccinated and unvaccinated person or persons are the same. Both can equally be a potential spreader if they are infected with Covid-19 Virus in them. This aspect of the matter came up for consideration by this Court in WP(C)/37/2020 (In Re Dinthar Incident Aizawl v. State of Mizoram Aizawl; in which case, this Court vide Order dated 02.07.2021, in paragraph 14 thereof, had observed as follows –

  • “14. It has been brought to our notice that even persons who have been vaccinated can still be infected with the covid virus, which would in turn imply that vaccinated persons who are covid positive, can also spread the said virus to others. It is not the case of the State respondents that vaccinated persons cannot be infected with the covid virus or are incapable of spreading the virus. Thus, even a vaccinated infected covid person can be a super-spreader. If vaccinated and un-vaccinated persons can be infected by the covid virus and if they can both be spreaders of the virus, the restriction placed only upon the un-vaccinated persons, debarring them from earning their livelihood or leaving their houses to obtain essential items is unjustified, grossly unreasonable and arbitrary. As such, the submission made by the learned Additional Advocate General that the restrictions made against the un-vaccinated persons vis-à-vis the vaccinated persons is reasonable does not hold any water. As the vaccinated and un-vaccinated persons would have to follow the covid proper behavior protocols as per the SOP, there is no justification for discrimination.”

14. Thus, if the sole object of issuing the Order dated 30.06.2021, by the Chief Secretary cum Chairperson-State Executive Committee, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, vide Memo No. SEOC/DRR&DM/01/2011-12, is for containment of the Covid-19 pandemic and its further spread in the State of Arunachal Pradesh, the classification sought to be made between vaccinated and unvaccinated persons for Covid-19 virus for the purpose of issuing temporary permits for developmental works in both public and private sector, vide Clause 11 thereof, prima facie, appears to be a classification not founded on intelligible differentia nor it is found to have a rational relation/nexus to the object sought to be achieved by such classification, namely, containment and further spread of Covid-19 pandemic.

15. For the reasons stated hereinabove, it prima facie appears to this Court that Clause 11 of the Order dated 30.06.2021, issued by the Chief Secretary cum Chairperson-State Executive Committee, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, vide Memo No. SEOC/DRR&D M/01/2011-12, in so far it makes a classification of persons who are Covid-19 vaccinated and persons who are Covid-19 unvaccinated for the purpose of issuance of temporary permits for developmental works in both public and private sector in the State of Arunachal Pradesh violates Articles 14, 19 (1) (d) & 21 of the Constitution of India calling for an interim order in the case. Accordingly, till the returnable date, Clause 11 of the Order dated 30.06.2021, issued by the Chief Secretary cum Chairperson-State Executive Committee, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, vide Memo No. SEOC/DRR&DM/01/2011-12, in so far it discriminates between Covid-19 vaccinated persons and Covid-19 unvaccinated persons for issuance of temporary permits for developmental works in both public and private sector in the State of Arunachal Pradesh, shall remain stayed.

A copy of the order dated 19.7.2021 is attached hereto.

It is a settled legal position that a person has the fundamental right to choose medication as per his choice.

4. Registrar General, High Court of Meghalaya Vs. State of Meghalaya 2021 SCC OnLineMegh 130,

On 23rd June, 2021 in the case between Registrar General, High Court of Meghalaya Vs. State of Meghalaya 2021 SCC OnLineMegh 130, it is ruled by High Court as under;

“It has been brought to the notice of this High Court that the State of Meghalaya, through various orders of the Deputy Commissioners, has made it mandatory for shopkeepers, vendors, local taxi drivers and others to get themselves vaccinated before they can resume their businesses. Whether vaccination can at all be made mandatory and whether such mandatory action can adversely affect the right of a citizen to earn his/her livelihood, is an issue which requires consideration.

Thus, by use of force or through deception if an unwilling capable adult is made to have the flu vaccine would be considered both a crime and tort or civil‟ wrong, as was ruled in Airedale NHS Trust v Bland reported at 1993 AC  789 = (1993) 2 WLR 316 = (1993) 1 All ER 821, around thirty years (30) ago. Thus, coercive element of vaccination has, since the early phases of the initiation of vaccination as a preventive measure against several diseases, have been time and again not only discouraged but also consistently ruled against by the Courts for over more than a century.

Till now, there has been no legal mandate whatsoever with regard to coercive or mandatory vaccination in general and the Covid19 vaccination drive in particular that can prohibit or take away the livelihood of a citizen on that ground.

In the “frequently asked questions” (FAQs) on COVID-19 vaccine prepared and uploaded by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India, in its official website, the question which appears under serial number 3 reads, “Is it mandatory to take the vaccine?” The “potential response”, which is provided in the official website reads, “Vaccination for COVID-19 is voluntary.

In this context, around one hundred and seven (107) years ago, in Schloendroff v Society of New York Hospitals reported at (1914) 211 NY 125 = 105 NE 92; 1914 NY Justice Cardozo ruled that „every human being of adult years and sound mind has a right to determine what shall be done with their body‟.

 This finds mention in decisions of the European Commission and Court of Human Rights [X vs. Netherlands of 1978 (decision rendered on 4th December, 1978); X vs. Austria of 1979 (decision rendered on 13th December, 1979)] which has become truer in the present times across the world than ever before. Compulsorily administration of a vaccine without hampering one‟s right to life and liberty based on informed choice and informed consent is one thing. However, if any compulsory vaccination drive is coercive by its very nature and spirit, it assumes a different proportion and character. However, vaccination by force or being made mandatory by adopting coercive methods, vitiates the very fundamental purpose of the welfare attached to it.

5. Common Cause Vs. Union of India (2018) 5 SCC 1 ,

In Common Cause Vs. Union of India (2018) 5 SCC 1, it is ruled as under;

169. In the context of health and medical care decisions, a person’s exercise of self-determination and autonomy involves the exercise of his right to decide whether and to what extent he/she is willing to submit himself/herself to medical procedures and treatments, choosing amongst the available alternative treatments or, for that matter, opting for no treatment at all which, as per his or her own understanding, is in consonance with his or her own individual aspirations and values.

Q. Conclusions in seriatim

202. In view of the aforesaid analysis, we record our conclusions in seriatim:

  • 202.8. An inquiry into Common Law jurisdictions reveals that all adults with capacity to consent have the right of self-determination and autonomy. The said rights pave the way for the right to refuse medical treatment which has acclaimed universal recognition. A competent person who has come of age has the right to refuse specific treatment or all treatment or opt for an alternative treatment, even if such decision entails a risk of death. The “Emergency Principle” or the “Principle of Necessity” has to be given effect to only when it is not practicable to obtain the patient’s consent for treatment and his/her life is in danger. But where a patient has already made a valid Advance Directive which is free from reasonable doubt and specifying that he/she does not wish to be treated, then such directive has to be given effect to.
  • 202.9.Right to life and liberty as envisaged under Article 21 of the Constitution is meaningless unless it encompasses within its sphere individual dignity. With the passage of time, this Court has expanded the spectrum of Article 21 to include within it the right to live with dignity as component of right to life and liberty.
  • 202.12. Though the sanctity of life has to be kept on the high pedestal yet in cases of terminally ill persons or PVS patients where there is no hope for revival, priority shall be given to the Advance Directive and the right of self-determination.
  • 202.13. In the absence of Advance Directive, the procedure provided for the said category hereinbefore shall be applicable.202.14. When passive euthanasia as a situational palliative measure becomes applicable, the best interest of the patient shall override the State interest.

306. In addition to personal autonomy, other facets of human dignity, namely, “self-expression” and “right to determine” also support the argument that it is the choice of the patient to receive or not to receive treatment.

517.The entitlement of each individual to a dignified existence necessitates constitutional recognition of the principle that an individual possessed of a free and competent mental state is entitled to decide whether or not to accept medical treatment. The right of such an individual to refuse medical treatment is unconditional. Neither the law nor the Constitution compel an individual who is competent and able to take decisions, to disclose the reasons for refusing medical treatment nor is such a refusal subject to the supervisory control of an outside entity.

6. Captain Vikrant Sansare V. State of Maharashtra and Others,

In Captain Vikrant Sansare V. State of Maharashtra and Others it is ruled as under (IVERMECTIN JUDGMENT) :

“4. A reply affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State Government of Dr. Sadhana M. Tayde, Director in the office of the Commissioner of Health Services, Mumbai to oppose the prayers as made in the petition. Referring to the order dated 20th May 2021, it is stated that the deponent could not give complete instructions to the Government Pleader and only recommendation letter by ICMR was given to the Court, and therefore, the Court had made observations to adjourn the proceedings to enable the State to issue appropriate advisory/circular in connection with the Tablet Ivermectin. In para 4 of the affidavit, it is stated that the Government of Maharashtra, through its Public Health Department has issued protocol for treatment of confirmed Covid-19 patients in home isolation and hospitalized patients on 8th April 2021. The said protocol has already prescribed the usage of tablet Ivermectin as a treatment method. Copy of the said circular is placed on record at page 143. It is thus submitted that since the usage of tablet Ivermectin is prescribed by the State Government, the medical fraternity is already using the same and no new advisory needs to be issued.


 

Keywords

Airedale NHS Trust v Bland, Aizawl, Arunachal Pradesh, Autonomy, Captain Vikrant Sansare, Cardozo, Common Cause, Common Law, Dignity, Dipali, Disaster Management Act, Emergency Principle, Guwahati, Imphal, India, Itanagar Bench, Ivermectin, Judgements, Lawyer, Madan Mili, Maharashtra, mandates, Manipur, Meghalaya, Mizoram, Ohja, OsbertKhaling, Principle of Necessity, Sadhana, Schloendroff v Society of New York Hospitals, Self-Determination, Summary, Super Spreader, Tayde, Union of India, UOI, Vaccine


Back to All Cases

 

Gates Vaccine Murder Case

Gates Vaccine Murder Case

Gates Vaccine Murder Case

Re: the culpability of Bill Gates & partners in the death of a man that died as a result of taking their product (the AstraZeneca Covid vaccine), an experimental drug that promised to save lives.

 

Back to All Cases

Facts of the Case

  • Dates: Nov 25, 2021
  • Location: Bombay, India
  • Court: Bombay High Court
  • Case #: Criminal Writ Petition (St.) 18017 of 2021
  • Plaintiff: Kiran Yadav (Petitioner)
  • Plaintiff’s Lawyer: Dipali Ohja
  • Defendant: Bill Gates, Adar Poonawalla, The Indian State
  • Trial Type: Writ petition
  • Justices: Sarang Kotwal & Nitin Jamdar
  • Status: TBD
  • Verdict: TBD

*This case was edited & reviewed by the Lawyer Dipali Ohja

*Updated Nov 12, 2022

 

Background

According to advocate Dipali Ohja….. “The plaintiff (petitioner), Kiran Yadav (mother of deceased) has sought prosecution of AstraZeneca’s (Covishield) manufacturer Bill Gates, his partner Adar Poonawalla and other Government officials and political leaders involved in the murder of a 23 year old man, Hitesh Kadwe, who lost his life because of vaccination. The deceased took the Covishield vaccine believing in the false narrative that the vaccine is completely safe and also owing to the compliance requirement set by the Indian Railways that only double vaccinated people would be allowed to travel.”  (1)

This is a Writ Petition for direction of Investigation through premier investigation agency C.B.I. AND granting  interim compensation of Rs. 100 Crores ($ 13.4 million USD)

As of Nov 11, 2022, There seems to be no further news on this case as yet. [2]

 
Covishield is the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine made by the Serum Institute of India.  [2]

The Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine has been suspended or has had its use limited in many countries, in some cases temporarily, over safety and efficacy issues. See Wikipedia ‘Oxford–AstraZeneca Covid-19 vaccine’.  Bill Gates funded the efforts in manufacturing the Covishield “vaccine.”  As a report by The Hindustan Times in August 2020 indicated, Gates had big dreams for Covishield: [2]

The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, via its Strategic Investment Fund, will provide at-risk funding of USD 150 million to Gavi, which will then be utilized to support the Serum Institute to manufacture the potential vaccine candidate. The potential Covid-19 vaccine manufactured by SII is likely to be made available to at least 92 countries. [2]

Serum Institute ties up with Bill Gates Foundation, Gavi to speed up Covid-19 vaccine manufacture process, The Hindustan Times, 7 August 2020

 
Another Death & Trial

In October 2021, the month before the first murder case was filed, India’s National Adverse Event Following Immunisation (“AEFI”) committee acknowledged, almost seven months after her death, that the death of Dr. Snehal Lunawat, a 33- year-old doctor from Maharashtra working in Gurugram, was due a Covishield “vaccine.” At the time, Dr. Lunawat’s death was recognised as the third vaccine-induced death by AEFI.

On 31 January 2022, the deceased doctor’s father, Dilip Lunwat, filed an Rs.10,000 crores or Rs.100,000,000,000 (US$1.34 billion) claim for compensation in the Indian High Court against the State Government of Maharashtra and Adar Poonawalla and his partner Bill Gates. 

On 1 September 2022, the Indian Bar Association reported that the Bombay High Court had “issued notice in a vaccine murder case of Dr. Snehal Lunawat where interim compensation of Rs. 1,000 crores (US$126 million approx.) is sought.”  The notice was issued on 26 August. The 8 defendants in the case are:

  • Serum Institute’s CEO Adar Poonawalla
  • Bill Gates– Partner in the Covishield vaccine
  • Union of India
  • State of Maharashtra
  • Ministry of Health & Family Welfare
  • Drug Controller General of India
  • Dr. V.G. Somani – Drug Controller General
  • Dr. Randeep Guleria, Former Director of AIIMS

The case has been scheduled for hearing on 17 November 2022.

 

Significance

This case is the world’s first vaccine murder case against Bill Gates and his Indian partner, Adar Poonawalla, CEO of the Serum Institute of India.

 

Related Prior Judgements/ Cases

  • In December 2021, in an unrelated case, India’s Central Government told the Supreme Court in its affidavit that there was no immunity for vaccine companies.  The Indian Bar Association noted: [2]

It is a major setback to the toxic philanthropist and vaccine mafia’s Kingpin Bill Gates and his partner Adar Poonawalla, and other co-accused who have been prosecuted for mass murders through vaccines. They are also charged for offences of cheating public at large with false narratives and conspiracy theories. [2]

More Trouble for Bill Gates and Adar Poonawalla, Indian Bar Association, 3 December 2021

 
  • The Plaintiff also relied upon the criminal antecedents of Bill Gates in killing 8 female children by unauthorized trial of HPV vaccines in India and judgment of Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Kalpana Mehta’s Case (2018) 7 SCC 1, which is a strong proof against Bill Gates and his vaccine syndicate. (1)
  • In a case before the American Court regarding the side effects of MR vaccines, the Court accepted the settlement of compensation of 101 Million US Dollars (around Rs. 752 Crores) to the victim. (1)
  • In another case in America, the CIA, FDA’s office of criminal investigation, recovered around 10.2 Billion US Dollar (around Rs.76,00 crores) from Pharma Company GlaxoSmithKline for various offences including suppression of side effects of the medicines and putting the life of Americans in danger. (1)

 

Plaintiff’s Argument

  • The Government of India’s AEFI (Adverse Event Following Immunisation) Committee has recently admitted that the death of another deceased Dr. Snehal Lunawat, was due to side effects of the Covishield vaccine. [copy of AEFI certificate is annexed to the petition] The said report has exposed the falsity of the claim made by vaccine syndicate that vaccines are totally safe. (1)

  • Plaintiff has claimed Rs. 1000 crores ($ 134 million USD) compensation and has asked for interim compensation of Rs. 100 crores ($ 13.4 million USD). (1)
  • Plaintiff has also sought Lie Detector, Narco Analysis Test of accused Bill Gates and others. (1)
  • Petitioner has also referred to the proofs of sinister plan of Bill Gates in the polio vaccination programme which spoiled the lives of more than 4.5 Lakh children in India as they suffered a new type of paralysis. This is also an additional proof of Bill Gates’ perverted and criminal mindset. The Plaintiff also relied upon the criminal antecedents of Bill Gates in killing 8 female children by unauthorized trial of HPV vaccines in India. (1)

  • As per experts, there is no chance of Bill Gates getting bail in the case and all the movable and immovable properties of the accused will be confiscated soon. (1)
  • Various social organizations and common people have decided to exercise citizen’s right to arrest the accused as provided under section 43 of Cr.P.C. As per the said section, any citizen can arrest Bill Gates, Adar Poonawalla and other accused and handover them to the police. (1)

 

Defendant’s Argument

tbd

 

Decision

tbd

RFKjr on Bill Gates

source: Naomi Wolf

Bill Gates India Vaccine Program

source: Reality Check w Ben Swann

Bill Gates Conflict of Interest

source: shortXXvids

Gates, GAVI & WHO

source: theHighWire.com

Corruption in WHO/GAVI

source: Corona-Ausschuss

Meet Bill Gates

source: the Corbett Report

 

References

  1. https://indianbarassociation.in/worlds-first-vaccine-murder-case-against-bill-gates-adar-poonawalla-filed-in-indias-high-court/
  2. India: Court Date Set for Bill Gates to Answer to Victims’ Family for Daughter’s Murder by Vaccine


 

Keyword

Vaccine induced death, mRNA vaccine, Covishield, vaccine, Dipali Ohja, India, Bill Gates, Adar Poonawalla, vaccine misinformation, Indian High Court, GlaxoSmithKline, Serum Institute of India, Snehal Lunawat, Writ petition, Hitesh Kadwe, murder


Back to All Cases