News
Featured Image

NEW DELHI, India (LifeSiteNews) – The High Court of Meghalaya, a state of Northeast India, has issued a judgement against mandatory or forced vaccination, setting this court apart from the rest of the country which continues to push for vaccine mandates.

The ruling issued on the 23rd of June under the case-name: High Court of Meghalaya vs. State of Meghalaya PIL No.6/2021 follows an attempt by the Indian state to impose the COVID-19 vaccine on its citizens.

“It has been brought to the notice of this High Court that the State of Meghalaya, through various orders of the Deputy Commissioners, has made it mandatory for shopkeepers, vendors, local taxi drivers and others to get themselves vaccinated before they can resume their businesses,” the High Court stated, adding, “whether vaccination can at all be made mandatory and whether such mandatory action can adversely affect the right of a citizen to earn his/her livelihood, is an issue which requires consideration.”

Appealing to Indian law, the ruling makes it clear that forced vaccination is to be considered a crime. Among other things, it clearly states: “if an unwilling capable adult is made, by use of force or through deception to have the vaccine, [this] would be considered both a crime and a tort.”

The ruling also made reference to a number of official sources from the Indian Ministry of Health which clearly stipulate that taking the COVID-19 vaccine is strictly voluntary and that a vaccination mandate would constitute a violation of the Indian constitution, as emphasized in Article 1.7 of the ruling:

1.7.   A perusal of the above RTI replies makes it is clear that the Union of India has made the vaccination drive completely voluntary. To coerce someone to take the vaccine is not only contrary to the guidelines of the Union of India but a violation of Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.

Beyond emphasizing the anti-constitutional nature of a vaccine mandate, the text also notes that individuals enforcing such a mandate are liable for action under the Indian penal code, a point emphasized in Article 2 of the ruling:

Persons or authorities forcing for vaccination will be liable for action under contempt and also face prosecution under section 188, 166 et al of Indian Penal Code.

The judgement also recalls that provisions against forced vaccination have been laid out in Indian law for decades:

Coercive vaccination, since the early phases of vaccination as a preventive measure against several diseases, has been time and again, not only discouraged, but also consistently ruled against by the Courts for over a century.

In rejecting the legality of a vaccine mandate, the High Court of Meghalaya distinguished itself from other courts in the country, including India’s Supreme Court which in early August refused to intervene on a plea against the vaccine mandate. The Times of India paraphrases Prahan Bhushan, an advocate for the petition, as explaining that “though the government on paper is taking the stand that it voluntary, authorities have passed various vaccine mandated directions which make vaccination virtually mandatory.”

— Article continues below Petition —
PETITION: No to mandatory vaccination for the coronavirus
  Show Petition Text
1072905 have signed the petition.
Let's get to 1100000!
Thank you for signing this petition!
Add your signature:
  Show Petition Text
Keep me updated via email on this petition and related issues.
Keep me updated via email on this petition and related issues.

People of goodwill can disagree about the safety, efficacy and religious implications of a new vaccine for the coronavirus.

But, everyone should agree on this point:

No government can force anyone who has reached legal adulthood to be vaccinated for the coronavirus. Equally, no government can vaccinate minors for the coronavirus against the will of their parents or guardians.

Please SIGN this urgent petition which urges policymakers at every level of government to reject calls for mandatory coronavirus vaccination.

Fear of a disease - which we know very little about, relative to other similar diseases - must not lead to knee-jerk reactions regarding public health, nor can it justify supporting the hidden agenda of governmental as well as non-governmental bodies that have apparent conflicts of interest in plans to restrict personal freedoms. 

The so-called "public health experts" have gotten it wrong many times during the current crisis. We should not, therefore, allow their opinions to rush decision-makers into policies regarding vaccination.

And, while some people, like Bill Gates, may have a lot of money, his opinion and that of his NGO (the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation) - namely, that life will not return to normal till people are widely vaccinated - should not be permitted to influence policy decisions on a coronavirus vaccination program.

Finally, we must also not allow the rush by pharmaceutical companies to produce a new coronavirus vaccine to, itself, become an imperative for vaccination.

Unwitting citizens must not be used as guinea pigs for New World Order ideologues, or Big Pharma, in pursuit of a vaccine (and, profits) which may not even protect against future mutated strains of the coronavirus.

And it goes without saying that the production of vaccines using aborted babies for cell replication is a total non-starter, as the technique is gravely immoral.

However, if after sufficient study of the issue, a person who has reached the age of majority wishes to be vaccinated with a morally produced vaccine, along with his children, that is his business.

But we cannot and will not permit the government to make that decision for us.

Thank you for SIGNING and SHARING this petition, urging policymakers at all levels of government to reject mandatory coronavirus vaccination.

FOR MORE INFORMATION:

Bill Gates: Life won’t go back to ‘normal’ until population 'widely vaccinated' - https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/bill-gates-life-wont-go-back-to-normal-until-population-widely-vaccinated

COVID-19 scare leads to more digital surveillance, talk of mandatory vaccine 'tattoos' for kids' - https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/covid-19-scare-leads-to-more-digital-surveillance-talk-of-mandatory-vaccine-tattoos-for-kids

Trudeau says no return to ‘normal’ without vaccine: 'Could take 12 to 18 months' - https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/trudeau-says-no-return-to-normal-without-vaccine-could-take-12-to-18-months

Trudeau mulls making coronavirus vaccine mandatory for Canadians - https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/trudeau-mulls-making-coronavirus-vaccine-mandatory-for-canadians

US bishop vows to ‘refuse’ COVID-19 vaccine if made from ‘aborted fetal tissue' - https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/us-bishop-vows-to-refuse-covid-19-vaccine-if-made-from-aborted-fetal-tissue

** While LifeSite opposes immorally-produced vaccines using aborted fetal cell lines, we do not have a position on any particular coronavirus vaccines produced without such moral problems. We realize many have general concerns about vaccines, but also recognize that millions of lives have been saved due to vaccines.

*** Photo Credit: Shutterstock.com

  Hide Petition Text

Earlier this month, the Supreme Court only reluctantly issued notices to the Indian Health Ministry and vaccine manufacturers on the disclosure of COVID vaccine data following a petition filed by pediatrician and vaccine expert Jacob Puliyel, a prominent physician who has spoken out on the adverse effects of the COVID-19 vaccines.

The petition emphasized the need for data transparency, stating it “is important for the respondent authorities to carefully monitor vaccine recipients and publicly record all adverse events. In other countries, this type of observation has helped identify the occurrence of blood clots and strokes in vaccine recipients.”

Justice L Nageswara Rao of the Supreme Court expressed his concerns that such a petition could be considered “promoting vaccine hesitation.”

“We are fighting against vaccine hesitancy. Do you not think such petitions would create doubt in the minds of the people?” he asked.

Bhushan insisted that it was not an anti-vaccine petition, but instead stressed that, though the COVID vaccine is supposed to be taken on a voluntary basis as per the government’s own directives, authorities in a number of Indian states have passed measures that make it virtually mandatory.

Bhushan was alluding here to another part of Puliyel’s petition, which states that “[c]oercing citizens directly or indirectly to get vaccinated is unconstitutional and violates the right to life of citizens.” The petition also pointed out that “while the [Indian] government has clearly stated (…) that Covid vaccines are voluntary, there are many instances from across the country where now various authorities are mandating vaccines.”

The petitioner further noted that “though emergency authorization of the vaccines may be advisable in the present situation, it does not however mean that these vaccines can be forced upon people, especially without all relevant data being available for independent public and scientific scrutiny.”

The Supreme Court refused to rule against the vaccine mandate, however, using the excuse that such measures are being implemented in many countries across the world and quoting the World Health Organization’s (WHO’s) claim that “vaccine hesitancy is one of the major problems in the world.”

LifeSiteNews has produced an extensive COVID-19 vaccines resources page. View it here. 

Comments

Commenting Guidelines

LifeSiteNews welcomes thoughtful, respectful comments that add useful information or insights. Demeaning, hostile or propagandistic comments, and streams not related to the storyline, will be removed.

LSN commenting is not for frequent personal blogging, on-going debates or theological or other disputes between commenters.

Multiple comments from one person under a story are discouraged (suggested maximum of three). Capitalized sentences or comments will be removed (Internet shouting).

LifeSiteNews gives priority to pro-life, pro-family commenters and reserves the right to edit or remove comments.

Comments under LifeSiteNews stories do not necessarily represent the views of LifeSiteNews.