New Delhi: The HPV vaccination drive case has drawn nationwide attention after a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) challenged the Centre’s cervical cancer vaccination programme in the Delhi High court. However, the Court refused to stay the ongoing campaign, saying the material placed before it did not show any immediate harm from the vaccine.
Delhi High Court Refuses to Halt HPV Vaccination Programme
The Delhi High Court declined to suspend the Centre’s HPV vaccination drive for adolescent girls under the Universal Immunisation Programme (UIP).
A Division Bench led by Chief Justice D.K. Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia observed that, based on the information presented by the government, there was no immediate evidence of harm that justified stopping the programme. The Court also clarified that its decision is only on interim relief. The larger legal questions raised in the PIL will be examined in future hearings.
HPV Vaccine Case: Why Did the Court Refuse to Stay the Vaccination Drive
The Centre informed the Court that HPV vaccination has benefited millions of people globally and that proper safety measures are being followed during implementation.
After reviewing the submissions, the Bench said there was no sufficient material to justify suspending the programme at this stage.
The judges reportedly observed that while the long-term benefits may still be examined, there was no immediate harm shown that required stopping the vaccination drive.
HPV Vaccine Case: What Is the PIL About
The PIL was filed by Dr. Sujata Mittal, along with health entrepreneur Jitendra Chouksey. The petition argues that the ongoing HPV vaccination programme violates the constitutional rights of adolescent girls, including:
- Right to bodily autonomy
- Right to informed consent
- Right to personal liberty under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution
The petition also alleges that parental consent is not being properly obtained before vaccination in some cases.
Safety Concerns Raised by the Petitioners
The petition highlights several concerns, including:
Lack of Public Safety Data
The petitioners argued that data on Adverse Events Following Immunisation (AEFI) has not been made publicly available, even though the government records such events.
They requested the Court to direct the government to disclose safety data from the ongoing vaccination programme.
Past Clinical Trial Concerns
The PIL refers to HPV vaccine clinical trials conducted in Gujarat and Andhra Pradesh in 2009.
It also mentions a 2013 Parliamentary Standing Committee report that pointed to alleged irregularities during those trials and raised questions about adverse events.
Recent Reported Cases
The petition also cites reports of medical complications allegedly occurring after HPV vaccination in Tamil Nadu, Gwalior and Bihar.
According to the petitioners, these incidents require closer monitoring and greater transparency. These claims remain allegations presented before the Court and have not been judicially established.
HPV Vaccine Case: Why Was Cervavac Not Included
The petition questioned why Cervavac, India’s indigenous HPV vaccine developed by the Serum Institute of India, was not selected for the current programme.
Government submissions before the Court noted that Cervavac is still undergoing clinical evaluation and is expected to be considered for inclusion in the national immunisation programme after 2027.
What Is the Government’s HPV Vaccination Programme
The Centre launched the HPV vaccination campaign in February 2026 as part of its cervical cancer prevention initiative. Under the programme:
- Eligible 14-year-old girls receive a free single-dose quadrivalent HPV vaccine.
- The programme is implemented through the Universal Immunisation Programme (UIP).
- The government says the vaccination drive follows appropriate safety protocols.
Court Says the Main Issues Are Still Open
Although the High Court refused to stop the vaccination drive for now, it made clear that important issues raised in the PIL remain under consideration. These include:
- Vaccine safety monitoring
- Transparency of adverse event reporting
- Informed parental consent
- Scientific basis of the programme
- Public health policy considerations
The Court will examine these issues during the next stages of the case.
Read also: No Age Relaxation for EWS Category: Delhi High Court Upholds Current Recruitment Rules
