Holocaust Survivor Mandate Case

Holocaust Survivor Mandate Case

Holocaust Survivor Jab Mandate Case

Re: the Legality of forcefully Injecting a Person with an alleged Medication Against their Will

 

Back to All Cases

Facts of the Case

  • Dates: Dec 14 2022
  • Location: Stuttgart, Germany
  • Court: District Court of Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt
  • Case #:
  • Plaintiff: 85 yr old Holocaust Survivor
  • Plaintiff’s Lawyer: Holger Fischer
  • Defendant: Guardian
  • Trial Type:
  • Judge: Dr. L
  • Status: Under Appeal
  • Verdict: TBD


*updated Jan 31. 2023

 

Background

A court in the German city of Stuttgart, in the state of Baden-Württemberg, sought to force COVID-19 vaccinations for an 85-year-old Jewish composer and a Holocaust survivor.  [1]….in order to institutionalise her “for her own good,” [2] 

The composer’s guardian had been trying to institutionalize his charge for years because she had once refused to take her medication. [2] 

Mascha Orel, co-founder of a holocaust survivors’ advocacy organization, comments that this suggests that there are financial interests at play, which also was observed by Report24. Orel published an open letter to the court, asking it to reconsider the order. [8]

Zhvanetskaya was born in 1937 in Vinnytsa, Ukraine, and moved to Germany in the late 1990s. She writes for various musical instruments, including contrabass, tuba, and trombone, and is a prolific composer, having authored two operas, more than twenty song cycles, symphonic works, and numerous sonatas. [8]
 
Issued December 2022, the order authorizes Zhvanetskaya’s guardian and medical support staff to force their way into her home, calling on police if needed, then lock her up in a psychiatric institution until December 2024 at the latest so that she can be administered two shots of the Covid-19 vaccine she has repeatedly insisted she does not want. [2]

According to the verdict of judge Dr. L. at the district court Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt, the accommodation of the affected person in the closed ward of a psychiatric hospital or a closed ward of a care facility was approved by the duty caregiver until December 5, 2024 at the latest. At the same time, two vaccinations against Covid-19 (Corona) for basic immunization were approved as compulsory medical measures, in each case after internal examination of the ability to vaccinate, until January 16, 2023 at the latest, with the consent of the duty caregiver. [7]

The court claims that Zhvanetskaya has been diagnosed with several mental illnesses, including frontotemporal dementia, “change of character,” delusional disorder, “narcissistic self-image,” egocentrism, and logorrhea. She also allegedly suffers from morbid obesity and cardiac issues. [8]

The judgment further states that the forced vaccination against Covid-19 against the will of the person concerned in the context of the accommodation was necessary for the welfare of the person concerned in order to avert an imminent significant damage to her health. [7]

Inna Zhvanetskaya had not been convinced of the necessity of this medical measure, on the contrary. She strictly rejected the vaccination. Therefore, the judge found that the substantial health damage could not be averted by any other measure reasonable for the person concerned, since the expected benefit of the medical measure would substantially outweigh the expected impairment of the person concerned. [7]

The non-consensual treatment is said to be justified by the composer’s alleged mental and physical illnesses, which the order claims include narcissism, egomania, logorrhea, dementia, obesity, heart disease, and an obsession with music. [2]

“She is completely caught up in her compositions and so busy with music that it is impossible to have a meaningful conversation with her,” the document states. [2]

 

The outlet Report24 posted a copy of the court order, which authorizes the woman’s transfer to a psychiatric ward and administering inoculations. According to the translation of the court documents done by Children’s Health Defense, if Zhvanetskaya or her guardians refuse to cooperate, the authorities should use force to make them: [8]

If the competent guardianship authority cooperates in the process of bringing the person concerned to [the] accommodation specified, it may, if necessary, use force and call in the assistance of the police enforcement authorities. [8]

The home of the person concerned may be forcibly opened, entered and searched for the purpose of carrying out the procedure. [8]

The immediate effectiveness of the decision is ordered. [8]

 

Attorney Holger Fischer got the case rolling. He reported about it in his Telegram channel, contacted Masha Orel, a co-founder of “We for Humanity”, who in turn contacted Report24. First, Report24 asked the court for an opinion on Sunday, January 8, 2023. This came on Monday and stated dryly and factually on what basis the deprivation of liberty measures as well as the compulsory medical treatment were ordered and that a complaint was pending (that of attorney Fischer). [7]

In the channel of attorney Holger Fischer one could read: 

With me the year began among other things with a cry for help from Baden-Wuerttemberg: At the request of the duty caregiver, a guardianship court approved the two-year closed accommodation of an old lady, which means compulsory treatment in a psychiatric hospital, followed by admission to the protected area of a nursing home. Without first waiting for the success of the hospital treatment and then, for example, deciding the case anew by obtaining a new expert opinion regarding the need for further accommodation, a decision is immediately made here about the future of this not so dependent woman. [7]

This alone is not disproportionate. Besides, the court expressly approves the compulsory vaccination against Covid-19. [7]

While a forced medication with psychotropic drugs may only be ultima ratio, accordingly not already included in the decision, here a court decides that the affected person receives her Covid injection by force without hesitation, i.e. possibly still directly after her transfer by means of police coercion to the psychiatric hospital. (, with the use of force. ) [7]

All for the benefit of the person concerned in accordance with Section 1906 (1) (2) of the German Civil Code, according to which placement against the will of a person concerned is only permissible because “an examination of the state of health, a medical treatment or a medical intervention is necessary to avert imminent significant damage to health, the measure cannot be carried out without the placement of the person concerned, and the person concerned cannot recognize the necessity of the placement or act in accordance with this insight due to a mental illness or mental or psychological disability.” [7]

Since the order is immediately enforceable, she now waits daily to be removed from her home, transported to the psychiatric ward, and forcibly inoculated by the guardianship authority, which will assist the duty caregiver in carrying out the order, which in turn will call in the police to apply coercive measures. The person concerned was born before the beginning of the Second World War and is of Jewish origin. [7]

In the channel one finds also the first legal statement of him. Among other things one can read there: It is not yet certain how the fate of the old lady will continue, who is to be accommodated today. By the legal remedy of the complaint the decision of the guardianship court to the long-term accommodation and compulsory vaccination is contestable and was contested. The decision of the Appeals Board of the Regional Court is pending. [7]

 
Hiding & Video

Zhvanetskaya was reportedly rescued ahead of their visit by “friendly activists.” On January 10, 2023, 1n a video recorded from her hiding place, the composer told Report24 that “music is my life, and if they take away music from me then they take my life.” [2]

Zhvanetskaya’s acquaintances have countered that the video she made this week proves she is of sound mind and body. While admitting the composer was “introverted and autistic,” Mascha Orel, co-founder of a holocaust survivors’ advocacy organization, told German outlet TKP after speaking to Zhvanetskaya that this was “normal for a highly talented artist”  [2]

According to Report24, the “exclusive video shows: She is neither of unsound mind nor endangering herself or others. She’s just afraid for her life,” rendering the psychiatric admittance questionable. [1]

 
Public Reaction
  • Austrian professor Martin Haditsch has argued that forcibly vaccinating Zhvanetskaya would violate the Nuremberg Code, a set of laws prohibiting non-consensual medical experimentation that was adopted during the Nazi war crimes trials that followed World War II. [2]
  • Politicians and legal experts, including the ‘Alternative for Germany’ (AfD) party’s Martin Sich, have decried the court order against the composer as a violation of Germany’s Basic Law. [2]
  • German outlet TKP and the Society of Physicians and Scientists for Health, Freedom and Democracy reported about lawyers, activists, and physicians defending Zhvanetskaya and criticizing the authorities for violating the Nuremberg Code, committing crimes against humanity by forcing an experimental drug on a person. [8]
 
  • Dr. med. Bodo Schiffmann also picked it up in his channel

“Holocaust survivor is to receive a compulsory medical measure twice tomorrow January 11, 2023: She is to be forcibly vaccinated against Covid-19 against her conscious decision. Furthermore, she is to be forcibly committed to a psychiatric institution. There she is to be vaccinated twice against COVID-19. The woman has consciously decided against this vaccination and is now being subjected to a compulsory medical measure as a Holocaust survivor in Germany.” and urges his readers to share the information widely in order to protect the lady. [7]

 
  • And Beate Bahner, specialized lawyer for medical law, commented:

This decision is a gigantic judicial scandal!!! Immediately executable! Tomorrow the composer is to be picked up. Then she will be vaccinated tomorrow at noon and, in addition, will probably be sedated with medication. I am stunned! A lawyer (Holger Fischer) has already filed a complaint. However, this does not prevent the judiciary and police from the immediate execution of this scandalous decision. This case must go to the public and to the press! Everyone must become active!“ [7]

  • The society of physicians and scientists for health, freedom and democracy e.V., MWGFD e.V., reports comprehensively and additionally publishes the letter of Mascha Orel, which is another Jewish woman living in Germany, born in Ukraine. In her open letter (engl. translation) she asked the court in Stuttgart to reconsider this decision. I spoke briefly with her to get more background information. [7]
 
  • Mascha Orel, co-founder of a humanitarian organization for holocaust survivors and their descendants, “We for Humanity,” reportedly spoke with the woman, and could not “confirm anything that was diagnosed in the report,” describing Zhvanetskaya as “vulnerable and frightened,” but having a “sharp mind.” Her true diagnosis is that she’s autistic, and “finds it difficult to interact with the outside world outside of her music,” said Orel, adding that “if it goes after that, one would have to isolate all autistic people.” [8]

 

What was your experience with Inna?

I talked to her on the phone for an hour. It is a madness. I wanted to see for myself what her condition is. She is vulnerable, frightened, and has been living in this state for about 2 years, as her duty caregiver has apparently tried to institutionalize her several times. The sword of Damocles of institutionalization has been hanging over her head for a long time. She has drawn an unequivocal comparison, “It’s like when Dad was at the front and Mom had to flee with me and my brother.” [7]

Why was psychiatry pushed forward?

Inna has a good soul around her, a woman who is there for her out of Christian charity. The woman has a sharp mind. She told me that about two months ago the nursing service was given the task of washing and dressing her. She could do that herself, she was always well groomed. Why was this done? Then probably the next instruction came from the caregiver that they had to control the acceptance of medication. These are two knock-out criteria. If you don’t take care of yourself and refuse to take medication, you are worthy of care. But both are just not true, according to Inna Zhvanetskaya’s confidante. Her father was a doctor and pharmacologist, and she pays close attention to the side effects and expiration dates of medications. Her father probably also taught her to weigh the benefits and risks, she has a very conscious approach to the subject and that is probably why she so strictly rejected vaccination. She probably takes the prescribed medication (e.g. because of water in the leg). [7]

Do you know how she feels about her situation?

She finds it difficult to interact with the outside world outside her music. Interaction with the outside world outside of her music is difficult for her. If that were the case, all autistic people would have to be isolated. It was a big effort for her to record the video, simply talking without a piano is not hers. But for her, it’s about her life. She talked and played for her life. That moved me to tears. That’s what Report24 called it: “Inna Zhvanetskaya plays for her life. And how she plays!” [7]

 
  • Children’s Health Defense stressed that “there is no medical or legal justification for compulsory vaccination,” and that the ruling is arbitrary. [8]
  • Martin Arieh Rudolph, chairman of the Jewish community in Bamberg, Bavaria sent a letter to the president of the Jewish community in Stuttgart, Barbara Traub, asking if she and the Jewish community could intervene to help Zhvanetskaya. [1]
 

“The facts seem unbelievable, because Germany has really learned nothing at all from history,” Report24 wrote. [4]

 
  • Michael Blume, the civil servant assigned to protect Jewish life in Baden-Württemberg state, including in its capital Stuttgart, is facing criticism on Twitter for failing to prioritize Zhvanetskaya’s case. There are calls for Blume to resign. [4]
  • Shai Glick, CEO of the Betsalmo—Human Rights in a Jewish Spirit NGO, told JNS,

“Anyone who acts against the people of Israel under the guise of anti-Zionism and anyone who supports the BDS movement, which applies a double standard solely towards the State of Israel, is himself antisemitic…. Mr. Blume should certainly not be in charge of the fight against antisemitism,” said Glick. [4]

 
Appeal

Zhvanetskaya’s lawyer, Holger Fischer, filed for an emergency appeal. On January 12, he posted on his Telegram channel that the Stuttgart regional court granted his application to suspend the compulsory vaccination until the decision on the appeal is made. Still, the composer might be forcefully institutionalized at any time, according to the lawyer. [8]

 “We for Humanity” also contacted the court with an appeal. On the same day, the employees of the care service succinctly informed that Ms. Zhvanetskaya would have to sign the work assignments finally, no more would be needed, as Ms. Zhvanetskaya would be picked up the next day. The supervisor would be there. [7]

 
Current Covid Regulations

Days before (the appeal Ruling) German Health Minister Karl Lauterbach announced an easing of one of the country’s last remaining pandemic restrictions. Lauterbach said Friday that as of February 2, there will no longer be a mask mandate for long-distance trains and buses. [3]

Masks will still be required in doctor’s offices, with masks and negative COVID-19 tests both required for hospitals and nursing homes. [3]

 
The Nuremberg Code

The Nuremberg Code ( from Wikipedia) is an ethical guideline for preparing and conducting medical, psychological and other experiments on humans. It has been part of the medical ethical principles in medical training since its formulation in the verdict of the Nuremberg Medical Trial (1946/1947), similar to the Geneva Vow. It states that in medical experiments on humans [7]

“the voluntary consent of the subject (is) absolutely necessary. This means that the person concerned must be capable, in the legal sense, of giving consent; that he must be able, uninfluenced by force, fraud, trickery, coercion, overreaching, or any other form of persuasion or coercion, to exercise his judgment; that he must have sufficient knowledge and understanding of the field in question in its details to be able to make an understanding and informed decision.” The Nuremberg Code was prompted by the crimes against humanity committed in the name of medical research during the National Socialist era, in particular “criminal medical experiments” and forced sterilizations. [7]

 

Significance

Austrian professor Martin Haditsch has argued that forcibly vaccinating Zhvanetskaya would violate the Nuremberg Code, a set of laws prohibiting non-consensual medical experimentation that was adopted during the Nazi war crimes trials that followed World War II. [6]

Covid Critic Robin Monotti tweeted

“This is opening the floodgates potentially to mass incarceration of people who refuse to be injected with experimental products” [5]

 

Plaintiff’s Argument

The Plaintiff argues that she is of sound mind and understands the risks of the experimental injections

 

Defendant’s Argument

The defendant argues that the Plaintiff is mentally ill and unable to make decisions for herself

 

Relevant Prior Judgements/ Cases

…More information is needed…

 

Decision

First Decision

On December 14 2022 a court order had authorized the forcible removal of Zhvanetskaya from her home in Stuttgart on Wednesday in order to institutionalise her “for her own good,” [2]

Second Decision

On January 12 2023 A regional court has overruled the decision. [1]

 

Aftermath

Soviet-born composer Inna Zhvanetskaya is reportedly in hiding from German authorities after they attempted to have the 85-year-old Holocaust survivor committed to a mental institution and inoculated against her will with a Covid-19 shot, German outlet Report24 said on Thursday. [2]

 

Media


Holocaust Survivor Jab Mandate Case – Jan 29 2023

source: Odysee / longXXvids


German court orders the forced Injection of Holocaust survivor -Jan 18 2023

source: Odysee / Towards The Light


Holocaust Survivor Pleads for her Life Link -Jan 10 2023

source: DeepThought


Holocaust survivor Vera Sharav speech at Nuremberg 75 -Aug 20 2022

source: Odysee / Towards The Light


Dr. Bodo Schiffmann Reports on the Forced Jab of Holocaust Survivor -Jan 11 2022

source: Odysee / 種 Datenarche


MUST WATCH: C19 Death Data Analysis for Every Country pre & post mRNA -Jan 12 2022

source: Odysee / Towards The Light


Rebel News Confronts Pfizer CEO at World Economic Forum -Jan 19 2023

source: Odysee / Towards The Light


Germany Vaccination Mortality Data -Dec 12 2022

source: Odysee / shortXXvids


Back to All Cases

 

Vaccine Mandate Case: Supreme Court

Vaccine Mandate Case: Supreme Court

Vaccine Mandate Case: Supreme Court

Re: the Legality of Vaccine Mandates

 

Back to All Cases

Facts of the Case

  • Dates: May 2, 2022 (decided)
  • Location: India
  • Court: Supreme Court
  • Case #:
  • Petitioner: Dr.Jacaob Puliyel
  • Petitioner’s Lawyer: Prashant Bhushan
  • Respondent: Union & State Governments of Delhi, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra & Tamil Nadu
  • Trial Type: Supreme Court
  • Justices: L Nageswara Rao & BR Gavai
  • Status: Decided
  • Verdict: for the Petitioner


*updated May 8, 2022

 

Background

a PIL filed by Dr.Jacaob Puliyel, challenging the vaccine mandates and seeking publication of the clinical trial and adverse events of vaccination. [1]

Dr. Jacob Puliyel, a former member of the National Technical Advisory Group of Immunization had approached the Apex Court assailing the constitutional validity of the vaccine mandates imposed by States, in particular, Delhi, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra and Tamil Nadu. He had sought the indulgence of the Court to issue directions to the concerned authorities to disclose the data pertaining to clinical trials of the COVID-19 vaccines administered to adults as well as children in India, as per the requirement of International Medical norms. The petitioner also impelled the Court to revamp the Adverse Events Following Immunization Reporting System which he alleged was opaque, flawed and unknown to the public at large. [1]

Petitioner Jacob Puliyal has said that even though the central government is saying that vaccination is optional, it is not mandatory, but in states like Delhi, Tamil Nadu, Maharashtra and Madhya Pradesh, it has become mandatory.  [2]

lawyer Prashant Bhushan had said that when the central government has said on many occasions, in response to statements and RTI that vaccination is not compulsory but optional, then in many states to open a shop, enter a shop or establishment. Vaccination certificates are sought on occasions such as entry of employees and people working there, walking on the streets, entering an educational institution? The petitioner, in his petition, has also referred to the circulars issued by the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi on October 8 last year, November 8 in Madhya Pradesh, November 27 in Maharashtra and November 18 in Tamil Nadu and clearly written guidelines in which vaccination should be done. Essential restrictions have been imposed. [2]

At the same time, the Central Government opposed the petition to give the data of the clinical trial of Corona vaccine and not to force the vaccine. In the Supreme Court, the central government had said that such petitions filed for the vested interest of some people can affect the vaccination process. Even an oral comment of the court can be harmful. [2]

The Center told the Supreme Court that till November 24, 2021, one billion 19 crore 38 lakh 44 thousand 741 doses of corona vaccine have been given. Out of these, 2116 cases of adverse event following immunization i.e. AEFI have been registered so far. A report of rapid review and analysis has been completed for 495 (463 Coveshield and 32 Covaxin). Another report of 1356 cases (1236 Covishield, 118 Covaxin and 2 Sputnik) of severe AEFI cases (including 495 cases already analyzed) has been submitted to NEGVAC. [2]

The remaining cases are under rapid review and analysis and will be completed soon. On behalf of the Central Government, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta had said that this petition should not be heard. This may increase hesitation for the vaccine. The country has come out of it with great difficulty. [2]

Justice Nageswara Rao had said that that is why we said that if you have some specific facts, then they should be heard. We also do not want that there should be any problem regarding vaccination. [2]

In fact, on 9 August 2021, the Supreme Court had issued a notice to the Central Government on the petition not to compel people to apply the vaccine and make the trial data public. However, the Supreme Court refused to impose an interim stay on forcing the vaccine to be administered. Justice L Nageswara Rao said that 50 crore people in the country have been vaccinated. The WHO has also said that vaccine hesitancy has done a lot of damage. [2]

Lawyer Prashant Bhushan had said that according to the sero report, 2/3 people have been infected with Covid. In such a situation, the anti body is more effective than the corona vaccine. Now a policy has been made that if the vaccine is not applied then one cannot travel. Many restrictions have been imposed. The government is not making clinical data public. Since the vaccine is voluntary, then if someone does not get the vaccine, then he should not be denied any facility. The petitioner’s lawyer Prashant Bhushan has filed an application asking that the clinical trial of the vaccine as well as the data regarding the adverse effect of the vaccine be made public. [2]

 

India made headlines last year when it refused to offer a liability shield to Pfizer or Moderna, unlike countries such as Canada — which still has a federal vaccine mandate and a ban on the unvaccinated for travel. As such, no contract was signed between India’s authorities and these vaccine manufacturers. Instead, India relied on their own domestically produced vaccines. [3]

Pfizer infamously wanted to hide their COVID trial-related data for seventy-five years but was forced by a court order to release it. As their data dumps are being made publicly available bit by bit, public outrage continues to grow. [3]

 

 

Significance

This case is the first in the Supreme Court to decide on the legality of Vaccine Mandates

 

Plaintiff’s Argument

Vaccine Mandates

The sheet anchor of Advocate, Mr. Prashant Bhushan’s argument against the vaccine mandates was that in the absence of clinical trial data people were restrained from providing informed consent and the same impinged on the right to self-determination protected under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, 1950. Relying on K Puttaswamy v. UOI (2017) 10 SCC 1 and Common Cause v. UOI (2018) 5 SCC1, he emphasised that informed consent is necessary for medical procedures and bodily integrity is an integral part of the right to privacy. The Court was apprised that though the Government of India had indicated that vaccines are to be administered voluntarily, the States have imposed mandated restricting movement, denying essential services and curbing the right to livelihood in derogation of Articles 19 and 21. Mr. Bhushan argued that when there exists scientific evidence to substantiate the claims that nature immunity is better than vaccine-immunity; vaccination does not prevent from getting infected or transmitting; vaccines are ineffective in preventing new variants; vaccines have serious adverse effects; long-effects of the vaccine are unknown, mandating vaccination is unconstitutional. [1]

“For any vaccine to be mandated, the public health rationale underlying such a policy must be based essentially on efficacy and safety of vaccination and prevention of transmission of the disease“, Mr. Bhushan submitted. [1]

He referred to the decision of the UK Parliamentary Committee; judgement of the High Court of New Zealand in Yardley v. Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety [2022] NZHC 291 and orders of Gujarat High Court and Meghalaya High Court sticking down vaccine mandates. [1]

 
Non-Disclosure of data

Mr. Bhushan submitted that the segregated data of clinical trials of vaccines must be disclosed through peer reviewed scientific journals. The disclosure would have a significant impact on determining the adverse effects of the vaccines. The significance of disclosure was asserted by placing reliance on the Nuremberg Code and Report Nos. 59 (2012) and 66 (2013) of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Health and Family Welfare. [1]

He informed the Court that an RTI Application was filed enquiring whether the Subject Expert Committee had looked at the raw days and/or discussed it. Responding to the same, the Central Drugs Control Standard Organisation stated that the brief of interim clinical trial results along with Subject Expert Committee’s recommendations was publicly available on CDSCO website. Dissatisfied with the response, an appeal was filed and the First Appellate Authority refused to reveal any data stating that the manufacturers had refused to disclose data publicly. [1]

 
Adverse Effect Following Immunization Reporting System

Mr. Bhushan submitted that besides it being an opaque and flawed system, there was a lack of public awareness about the same. [1]

 
Children’s Vaccine Mandate

Citing articles published in scientific journals, Mr. Bhushan argued that the overall risk from COVID-19 for children being remarkably low, it is not reasonable to vaccinate them, that too, without providing an opportunity to the parents to provide informed consent [1]

 
Rebuttal Arguments of the petitioner

Mr. Bhushan contended that the non-disclosure of trial data is preventing independent experts from making their own determinations. He stressed upon the petitioner’s plea that disclosure would permit the independent experts to look into the veracity of the claims of the manufacturers. In this regard, he referred to a United States District Court judgment, wherein the regulatory body was directed to disclose all the information pertaining to the Pfizer vaccine. [1]

He submitted that even considering the Government’s submission on privacy of the patients who participated in the trials, it ought to have made available segregated data. He emphasised that the assertion, vaccines significantly reduce the risk of transmitting the disease, had to be established by the Government by adducing evidence. Mr. Bhushan argued that by merely stating there exists a robust system for granting approval, it cannot be taken outside the ambit of judicial scrutiny. Mr. Bhushan asserted that the information available on the website pertains only to recommendations made by the expert bodies, but does not indicate the material on the basis of which such recommendations were made. [1]

With respect to the adverse reporting system, he pointed out that only the vaccinator can report such effects; the public at large have no knowledge about the reporting system and only known adverse effects can be reported. [1]

 

Defendant’s Argument

Argument from State Government of the Union Government

Solicitor General, Mr. Tushar Mehta at the outset, had questioned the bona fides of the petitioner. He contended that by way of a Public Interest Litigation, the petitioner cannot seek raw data of the clinical trial of the COVID-19 vaccines, merely to satisfy his curiosity, nor can he sit in judgment of the wisdom of domain experts. He refuted the claim of serious adverse effects. According to the official record till 13.03.2022, 1,80,13,23,547 doses had been administered and 77314 people or 0.004% of the vaccinated population had been adversely affected. Refuting the submissions made by Mr. Bhushan, alleging irregularities in the vaccine approval process, he took the Court through the statutory framework and submitted that the same had been adhered to while granting approval. Referring to the Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897 and Disaster Management Act, 2005, he demonstrated the wide ambit of power entrusted upon the Central Government to take measures during a pandemic. [1]

Mr. Mehta vehemently opposed the claim of the petitioner that there was a lack of mechanism for addressing adverse effects from immunization. On the issue of disclosure of clinical trial data, it was asserted that the same was in the teeth of confidentiality provisions. It was highlighted that the Helsinki Declaration and the WHO statement relied upon by the petitioner to seek raw clinical trial data only refers to the obligation to disclose final results, findings and outcomes which have already been disclosed.

Addressing the issue of children’s vaccine mandate, it was argued that evidence provided by the petitioner is based on mRNA vaccine, whereas the vaccine being administered in India was inactivated virus vaccines. It was further pointed out that for pediatric vaccines there is a statutory regime in place, which is being strictly followed. [1]

Mr. Mehta referred to a catena of foreign judgments with respect to vaccination in general, and the vaccination during the COVID-19 pandemic in particular to indicate that individual liberty is not absolute and is subject to other factors, like legitimate aim; and the necessity to achieve that aim.

Moreover he argued that the vaccine mandate is a matter of policy; a matter of scientific adjudication and the scope of judicial review in policy matters, especially when the executive decision is based on expert opinion, is limited. [1]

 

Argument from State Government of Tamil Nadu

Appearing for the State of Tamil Nadu, its Additional Advocate General, Mr. Amit Anand Tiwari submitted that the State Government has exercised power under Tamil Nadu Public Health Act, 1939 and the Disaster Management Act, 2005 to mandate vaccination for accessing public spaces. The mandate was justified, broadly on three grounds : [1]

  1. It prevents mutation

  2. Unvaccinated people causes health risk and

  3. Economic impact.

 

Argument from State Government of Maharashtra

Advocate, Mr. Rahul Chitnis, appearing for the State of Maharashtra, submitted that the Government has mandated vaccination to enter shops, malls etc., and also to avail public transportation, but the same would pass the test of proportionality as expounded by the Apex Court in Modern Dental College And Research Centre And Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh. [1]

 
Argument from State Government of Madhya Pradesh

The Counsel adopted the submissions made by the Solicitor General about the need to balance rights. It was also clarified that the Government did not intend to make vaccines mandatory to avail ration. On the contrary, the purpose of the notification was to encourage individuals to get vaccinated. [1]

 
Argument from the Vaccine Manufacturers

Senior Advocate, Mr. Guru Krishnakumar, appearing for Bharat Biotech, controverted Mr. Bhushan’s argument that Phase III Trial of the vaccine has not been published. Moreover, it was emphasised that WHO guidelines referred to by the petitioner do not mandate the disclosure of the primary data and only the analysis of the data. Reliance was placed on Section 8(1)(d) of the Right to Information Act which exempts the disclosure of information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party. The Counsel appearing for SII also opposed the petitioner’s plea for disclosure. [1]

 

Relevant Prior Judgements/ Cases

decision of the UK Parliamentary Committee; judgement of the High Court of New Zealand in Yardley v. Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety [2022] NZHC 291 and orders of Gujarat High Court and Meghalaya High Court sticking down vaccine mandates. [1]

 

Decision

The Supreme Court on Monday held that no individual can be forced to get vaccinated and the right to bodily integrity of a person under Article 21 of the Constitution include the right to refuse vaccinate. [1]

The Court also held that the vaccine mandates imposed by various state governments and other authorities in the context of COVID-19 pandemic are “not proportionate. The Court held so as no substantial data has been produced on record to show that the risk of transmission of COVID-19 virus from the unvaccinated persons are higher than from vaccinated persons. [1]

The Government is entitled to impose restrictions on individual rights in public health interests, but the restrictions should meet the 3-fold requirement legality, need and proportionality laid down by the Supreme Court in the Puttaswamy judgment. [1]

“No data has been provided by the Union of India or States before us controverting the material placed by petitioner which indicates that the risk of tranmission by unvaccinated is at par with vaccinated.In light of this the vaccine mandates cannot be said to be proportionate till the infection rate remains low and new development of research emergence which justifies the mandate”, the Court stated. [1]

Therefore, the Court suggested that all authorities, including private institutions and educational institutions, should review the restrictions on the unvaccinated. The Court however clarified that this direction is confined to the present context of the COVID pandemic situation. It further clarified that it does not extend to any other directions on COVID-19 appropriate behaviour issued by the authorities. [1]

 
Union’s vaccine policy not unreasonable or arbitrary.

The Court also held that the policy of the Union Governemnt on COVID-19 vaccination policy is reasonable. It also held that the clinical trial data of the vaccines have been published in accordance with the relevant norms. The material provided by the Union of India does not support the conclusion that emergency use approval has been granted in haste. [1]

 
Publish reports on Adverse Events

The Court also directed the Union of India to publish reports on Adverse Events Following Immunisation (AEFI) from public and doctors on a publicly accessible system without compromising data of the individuals who are reporting the same. [1]

 
Vaccination for children approved

Regarding vaccine for children, the Court said that it is not possible for us to second guess the opinion of experts and the vaccination indeed follows the global standards and practices. [1]

“On pediatric vaccine, it is in tune with international standards. We direct the Union of India to make sure the key findings of the stages of trial already approved for children be made public at the earliest”, the Court said. [1]

The Court rejected the arguments against the maintainability of the writ petition. Though executive has wide latitude in policy matters, it does not bar the Courts from scrutinizing if the policy is beyond the pale of arbitrariness.

 

Aftermath

…More information is needed…

 


Further Research

Court Documents:
  • Read the Court Ruling
In the news:

On Corona Cases

 

Media


Supreme Court of India rules against vaccine mandates

source: RebelNews


Yohan Tengra: India Supreme Court Stops C19 Vaccine Mandates

source: WorldCouncilForHealth


Supreme Court Upholds Individual’s Right Against Forcible Vaccination

source: NDTV


Pfizer Vaccine Data Analyzed

source: canadiancovidcarealliance.org


12 yr old Vaccine Trial Victim, Maddie

source: shortXXvids


source: …

 

References


 

Keyword

Adverse, Adverse Events Following Immunisation, AEFI, Bharat Biotech, Bhushan, constitution, Delhi, Disaster Management Act, Effects, Epidemic Diseases Act, India, informed consent, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Mehta, Nuremberg Code, Puliyel, Reporting, Reporting System, Side, Supreme Court, System, Tamil Nadu, Unconstitutional, Vaccine Mandate 


Back to All Cases

 

PDF-BonSensComplaint

PDF-BonSensComplaint

Criminal Complaint: Abuse of Power

Re: the Legality of Representatives of the People to represent Private Interests against the interest of the People they are sworn to protect & represent that has led to the forced medical experimentation of the people against their will, along with other removal of inalienable Liberties

 

Back to All Cases

This is a Criminal Complaint holding members of the French Parliament responsible for deaths & damages caused by the Covid Measures & Medical Treatments – Jan 17 2022


Click the “View Fullscreen” button below to get full functionality in fullscreen.


Back to All Cases