New Delhi | November 13, 2025 – The Supreme Court on Thursday raised pointed questions over the credibility of petitioners who relied on the United Kingdom’s Covid vaccine data while alleging underreporting of vaccine-related deaths in India. The bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta was hearing pleas that highlighted concerns over alleged adverse effects of the Covishield vaccine, including claims that two women had died in 2021 following the first dose.

The petitioners contended that the Indian government reported an “alarmingly low” number of deaths resulting from adverse effects following immunization (AEFI), suggesting that the official figures were not reflective of the actual impact of the vaccine. They argued that, given India administered 30 times more doses than the UK, there appeared to be a stark discrepancy between the two nations’ data.

Senior advocate Colin Gonsalves, appearing for the petitioners, submitted that the difference in reported deaths between the UK and India was so substantial that it raised concerns about transparency. “The UK is putting its data transparently, whereas India is hiding the data of deaths,” he claimed, emphasizing that an independent expert body should investigate the matter.

In response, the Supreme Court bench questioned the petitioners’ faith in foreign data while expressing skepticism about disregarding Indian figures. “You trust the data uploaded by the UK government… and you don’t trust the data uploaded by our government?” Justice Nath asked. Gonsalves replied that the UK data appeared correct, but he could be corrected on that point.

Centre Defends Indian Covid Vaccination Data

Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati, representing the Centre, opposed the plea, stating that the matter had already been examined in prior proceedings and that the apex court had delivered verdicts on related issues. She highlighted India’s vaccination statistics, noting that as of December 2024, 220 crore doses had been administered. According to official figures, only 92,697 AEFI cases were reported, representing 0.0042% of total doses. Of these, 2,843 cases were classified as severe, while the majority, 89,854, were minor. Total deaths reported following vaccination amounted to 1,171, or 0.00005% of all doses administered.

Bhati emphasized that vaccines had prevented millions of deaths during the pandemic and highlighted the robustness of India’s monitoring and reporting mechanisms. “Every drug will have side effects. The point is how it impacts me may not be the same as how it impacts someone else,” she explained. She elaborated that differences in DNA across populations could lead to variations in how vaccines affected individuals in India compared to Europe or Africa.

The ASG further noted that India’s Covid vaccination campaign was voluntary and praised for its approach globally. “The government of India was encouraging, persuading, and requesting citizens to take vaccination. We can’t compare it to compulsory vaccination systems elsewhere,” she said.

Petitioners Seek Independent Review

Gonsalves suggested that, based on rough extrapolations comparing Indian figures with the UK, deaths due to vaccine adverse effects in India could be closer to 33,000, although he acknowledged this was not a precise figure. The petitioners urged that an independent expert committee examine possible adverse effects and evaluate their treatment.

The plea also sought amendments in the relief clause, requesting that the government provide clear information on potential side effects of Covid vaccines and the treatment protocols for such adverse events. Gonsalves reiterated the seriousness of the matter, arguing that transparency and independent investigation were essential for public trust.

Supreme Court to Examine Submissions

The Supreme Court bench reserved its order after hearing arguments and directed both parties to submit written statements. “We will take care of all your written submissions that you submit. We will accordingly pass appropriate orders — whether a committee is to be constituted, not to be constituted, or what directions are to be issued,” Justice Nath said.

The bench’s scrutiny highlighted a key tension in public discourse on Covid vaccination: balancing data transparencyand public confidence against reliance on foreign benchmarks that may not accurately reflect local conditions.

While the government maintained that India’s vaccination drive was scientifically monitored, voluntary, and globally recognized, the petitioners pressed for independent evaluation to ensure all potential adverse effects were fully documented and addressed.

The case underscores the ongoing debate over vaccine safety reporting and the need for robust monitoring frameworksto maintain credibility and public trust, particularly in the context of large-scale immunization campaigns affecting hundreds of millions of people.