Delhi High Court Permits Continued HPV Vaccinations Pending Scientific Review
The Delhi High Court rejected a request to halt the government's HPV vaccination drive for 14-year-old girls. Although the court demanded rigorous adherence to safety protocols, it found no evidence of immediate harm to justify an emergency stay.
Judicial Response to Safety Concerns
The Delhi High Court declined to issue an emergency stay on the central government’s Human Papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination campaign on Wednesday, July 29, 2026. A Bench comprising Chief Justice D.K. Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia determined that the current evidence does not demonstrate immediate danger to public health. While the justices allowed the rollout to proceed, they emphasized that health authorities must never administer "half-baked vaccines" and must strictly observe all established security protocols.
The legal challenge originated from a public interest litigation (PIL) filed by Dr. Sujata Mittal and Jitendra Chouksey. The petitioners raised alarms regarding long-term safety, the adequacy of informed consent, and the tracking of adverse reactions. They specifically highlighted the international controversy surrounding the Gardasil vaccine and cited the case of a 14-year-old girl in Tamil Nadu. Following her vaccination at Kanai Government Hospital on March 30, 2026, the minor reportedly suffered severe neurological symptoms, including vision loss, paralysis-like weakness, and a loss of speech within days.
Government Data and Voluntary Status
Representing the Centre, Additional Solicitor General Chetan Sharma clarified the current status of the initiative. He informed the court that the HPV vaccine is not currently included in the Universal Immunisation Programme. Since the launch of the drive across States and Union Territories on February 28, the government reported the following data as of July 25:
- Total doses administered: 5.5 million to 14-year-old girls.
- Reported adverse events: 120 total cases.
- Aggravated symptoms: 42 cases.
- Mortality: Zero reported deaths.
The government maintained that the program remains entirely voluntary, requiring explicit informed consent from parents before any minor receives a dose. Mr. Sharma assured the bench that all necessary scientific and safety benchmarks were cleared prior to the vaccine's introduction.
Procedural Orders and Next Steps
The court noted that while the long-term efficacy of the vaccine remains a subject for scrutiny, the lack of "instant harm" in the existing data precludes an immediate injunction. However, the Bench expressed a commitment to investigating the underlying merits of the challenge against the vaccine's introduction. The court has granted the Centre, the Central Drugs Standard Control Organisation (CDSCO), and the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) a period of four weeks to file their formal responses. The proceedings are scheduled to resume on October 29, 2026.
Source: The Hindu — Sci-Tech
