On 10 March 2026, the Supreme Court directed the Union government to formulate and publish a "no-fault" compensation policy for serious adverse events following COVID-19 vaccination administered under the national immunisation programme. The ruling, in Rachna Gangu v. Union of India, is significant because it does not require families to prove anyone was negligent, only that grave harm occurred and is causally linked to a vaccination drive the State itself ran.
What did the Court actually direct?
A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta was hearing a batch of writ petitions, including ones filed by parents of young people who received COVID-19 vaccination and are alleged to have died afterward, seeking an independent expert medical board to examine such deaths, protocols for early detection and treatment of Adverse Events Following Immunisation (AEFI), and compensation. On 10 March 2026, the Court disposed of the petitions by directing the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare to formulate and publish a no-fault compensation framework, rather than leaving affected families to pursue ordinary civil litigation for damages. The full judgment sets out the Court's reasoning in detail.
Why "no-fault," and why here specifically?
The Court's reasoning rests on Article 21's positive obligation on the State: where the State runs a mass public health intervention that citizens are, in practice, strongly encouraged or required to participate in, and grave harm is alleged to result, families should not be left without an accessible path to redress simply because proving individual fault or negligence is difficult. As Supreme Court Observer's analysis of the ruling notes, this reasoning treats the absence of any structured AEFI compensation mechanism as itself a constitutional gap, distinct from whether any particular vaccine batch or administration was actually defective.
No-fault compensation vs. an ordinary negligence claim
| Ordinary tort / negligence claim | No-fault compensation |
|---|---|
| Claimant must prove a specific party (doctor, hospital, manufacturer, or the State) breached a duty of care | Claimant need not prove anyone was at fault or negligent |
| Requires establishing causation and breach through evidence, often via a full civil trial | Requires establishing serious harm and a causal link to the specific public health intervention |
| Can take years to resolve through ordinary civil litigation | Intended to be faster and more accessible, via an administrative scheme rather than a lawsuit |
| Available for harm from any source where negligence can be shown | Specifically for harm from a State-run public health intervention, as directed in this ruling |
How does this compare to other no-fault schemes in Indian law?
No-fault compensation is not a new legal concept in India; it already exists in road accident law, where victims can claim compensation without proving the driver was at fault. Our guide to MACT claims and no-fault compensation explains how that framework operates in practice. The Rachna Gangu ruling effectively extends the same underlying logic, redress without needing to litigate fault, to a different context: serious harm from a State-run immunisation programme. It follows a broader pattern of the Court reading Article 21 to require the State to provide accessible compensation mechanisms in specific high-stakes contexts, similar in spirit to the civic-body obligations discussed in our article on stray dog attack compensation.
What should affected families do now?
The Court's order requires the government to formulate and publish the compensation policy; it does not itself set out claim amounts, deadlines, or a filing process, since those details are for the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare to define. Families who believe they have a genuine AEFI-related claim should keep all medical records, vaccination certificates, and any AEFI reports filed with health authorities at the time, since these will likely be central evidence once a claims process is published, and should consult an advocate to track how the policy takes shape and to evaluate whether a claim under it, or a separate legal route, best fits their situation.
Disclaimer: This article is for general information only and is not legal advice. The government's no-fault compensation policy had not been published in final form as of this article's publication date; consult a qualified advocate for the current position and for advice on your specific situation.
Frequently asked questions
What did the Supreme Court order in Rachna Gangu v. Union of India?
On 10 March 2026, a bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta directed the Union of India, through the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, to formulate and publish a no-fault compensation framework for serious Adverse Events Following Immunisation (AEFI) arising from COVID-19 vaccines administered under the national immunisation programme.
What does 'no-fault compensation' actually mean?
It means compensation is available on proof of serious harm and a causal link to a State-run public health intervention, without the claimant having to prove the government or manufacturer was negligent. This is different from an ordinary tort claim, where the claimant must establish that someone's fault, carelessness, or breach of duty caused the injury.
Why did the Court say a no-fault scheme was needed here specifically?
Because the harm, if any, arose from a mass public health intervention that the State itself ran and, in effect, required citizens to participate in. The Court held that Article 21's positive obligation on the State means families facing grave harm from such a State-led programme should not be left without an accessible redress mechanism, regardless of whether individual fault can be proven.
Does this mean the government has accepted vaccines caused the deaths in this case?
No. The order directs the government to create a compensation mechanism and process; it does not itself adjudicate or establish that any specific death or injury was caused by the vaccine. Causal link in any individual claim would still need to be assessed under whatever framework the government publishes.
How is this different from filing an ordinary medical negligence claim?
A medical negligence claim requires proving that a specific doctor, hospital, or manufacturer breached a duty of care, which can be difficult and slow to establish. A no-fault scheme, once the government publishes it, is expected to require only proof of serious harm and its causal connection to the vaccination, without needing to prove anyone was at fault.