That’s the issue. The opinion of experts is that if not all people were vaccinated, So there will be scope for generating new variants of the virus. New variant arrived So he can neutralize the old vaccination. That’s why it is necessary to vaccinate everyone. There is an ongoing debate on this issue around the world.
The Supreme Court’s ruling that one’s body cannot be violated without its consent is in line with the modern notion of personal liberty. But the context in which the Supreme Court said this, there is certainly room for debate. After all, the challenge before any society is to strike a proper balance between individual liberty and larger social objectives. In this case one has to step by step. The thing to be taken care of is that in the care of fulfilling one objective, the other objective should not be violated. The Supreme Court has said that no one can be compelled to take the Kovid vaccine. The court said that the conditions imposed by some state governments and institutions regarding access to public places on people who have not got the Kovid vaccine are not correct. By the way, the court upheld the government’s Kovid vaccination policy and said that the way the threat of corona virus had arisen in the country, the policy of vaccination was fine. But that’s the point.
Experts are of the opinion that if not all people are vaccinated, there will be room for new variants of the virus to arise. If the new variant comes, it can neutralize the old vaccination. That’s why it is necessary to vaccinate everyone. There is an ongoing debate on this issue around the world. A large group of opponents of the vaccine has come to the fore in different countries. It is difficult to say that these groups have scientific facts and arguments. Therefore, it was expected that the Court would give a scientific opinion. However, a bench of Justices L Nageswara Rao and BR Gavai accepted the plea which held that making vaccination a condition of access to benefits or services was a violation of the rights of citizens. Therefore it is unconstitutional. Then if this argument is taken forward, then will it be called constitutional to collect biometric data of any person without his consent? Would forced DNA tests of a person or continuous surveillance through CCTV cameras be considered justified? The court has a different view on these matters. In such a situation, there is full scope for questioning the latest decision.
