The Delhi High Court has issued a notice to the Central government and the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) in response to a petition challenging the nationwide rollout of the Human Papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine, Gardasil. The vaccine is intended for administration to adolescent girls as part of the Universal Immunisation Programme (UIP). The court expressed concerns about the adequacy of studies conducted before its distribution.
HPV is recognized as the most prevalent sexually transmitted infection worldwide, with high-risk strains linked to cervical, anal, throat, and penile cancers. Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia, comprising the Division Bench, acknowledged the seriousness of the matter, scheduling a hearing for July 29. The Bench requested Additional Solicitor General Chetan Sharma to provide assistance in the case.
“Mr. Sharma, this is a very important issue. While vaccination is a beneficial initiative, potential adverse effects warrant our careful consideration. Please seek instructions from the Ministry and ensure that someone in charge, along with a representative from the drug control organization, briefs you,” remarked the Court. The Bench emphasized that while it does not question the government’s intentions, the issue affects all girl children, necessitating a cautious approach.
The High Court’s examination was prompted by a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) submitted by gynaecologist Dr. Sujata Mittal and fitness influencer Jitendra Chauksey. The petition scrutinizes the data, efficacy, and necessity of the vaccine, highlighting that vaccinations are being conducted in schools. Frontline health workers, including Accredited Social Health Activists (ASHA), are reportedly under pressure to meet enrolment targets, potentially exerting undue influence on young girls.
The petitioners referenced the case of a 14-year-old girl from Tamil Nadu who reportedly experienced severe neurological complications, such as paralysis-like symptoms, loss of voice, and impaired vision, following the vaccine’s administration in March 2026. Similar incidents in Gwalior and Bihar were cited to challenge the vaccine’s safety and monitoring processes.
More Read
The nationwide vaccine rollout, according to the petition, lacks conclusive studies and informed consent, thus infringing on constitutional rights to bodily autonomy and personal liberty. Concerns about the conduct of HPV vaccine trials and the adequacy of participant consent remain unresolved. Additionally, the petition argued that the vaccine’s long-term efficacy in preventing cervical cancer is not definitively proven, with regular screening being the most reliable preventive measure.
The petitioners are seeking judicial scrutiny of the programme, raising significant questions about consent, safety, scientific rationale, and public health policy. Senior Advocate Gyanendra Kumar, along with advocates Rohit Kumar, Divyanshi Pundhir, Sugandh Virmani, Nikhil Bhasin, and Ritik Kumar, represented the petitioners in court.
