Supreme Court Rejects PIL Claiming India's HPV Vaccine Could Affect Fertility in Adolescent Girls

NEW DELHI, INDIA, September 10, 2026: On September 10, the Supreme Court of India rejected a PIL filed by the Universal Health Organisation against India's HPV vaccination program. The PIL claimed that the HPV vaccination affects fertility in adolescent girls and alleged that the program was being implemented without adequate informed parental consent.

The PIL seeks judicial intervention to ensure the program implemented consistently across the country.  The UHO is also asking the government to take responsibility for ensuring that the vaccination drive to be consensual, informed, transparent and accountable. 

The PIL was filed by UHO chairperson Dr. Amitav Banerjee, under the Article 32 of the Constitution. It was filed through Supreme Court Advocate Shivam Raghuwanshi. 

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymala Bagchi and Justice V Mohana was hearing the petition.

The HPV vaccination program was launched by Prime Minister Narendra Modi on February 28, 2026. The programme aimed to target 1.15 crore girls over the age of 14 across all states and union territories. 

Also see: Delhi HC Issues Notice on PIL Raising Concerns over HPV Vaccination Programme for Girls

At the hearing, the petitioner’s lawyer clarified that they were not fighting against vaccination. Instead, the lawyer explained that their core concerns focused on how the HPV vaccination program was being managed, specifically regarding the tracking of the side effects and the lack of a compensation system.

He said, “I am not at all anti-vaccine. My first contention is the way it is being implemented. Second, there is no adverse event mechanism. Whenever there is an adverse event, it must be monitored. There should also be a compensation scheme.”

At the very beginning of the hearing, the bench asked the petitioner if they’d want to withdraw the PIL.

"No special treatment for one case where adverse effects are seen. Please withdraw the PIL,” Justice Joymala Bagchi advised the petitioner’s advocate. 

The court also cautioned against making claims about vaccines without adequate scientific research, observing that such assertions could undermine or derail a public health programme.

Justice Bagchi said that wherever there was a case of incorrect vaccination, ordinary rules of compensation would apply and that there could be no special treatment for adverse effects linked to a particular vaccine.

Also see: The HPV Vaccine Works –But Only If We Keep Trusting It

Justice Bagchi said that WHO has prescribed the HPV vaccine, and he questioned why doctors from UHO are against it.

According to Livelaw, he said, “ WHO prescribes vaccines for women. After that, I don't think doctors should come up with a petition.”

CJI said that the situation is related to the health of millions of adolescent girls in India and that they’d not entertain any PIL from doctors who are against the HPV vaccination program.

The CJI also told the petitioner not to ask the court to make harsh observations, saying the matter concerned the health of millions of adolescent girls and warning that the PIL could derail the vaccination programme.

When the petitioner urged the matter to be argued even after it was dismissed, the bench warned that it would take harsh steps against the UHO. 

The bench said that a public health program cannot be disturbed and also assured that general rules of compensation will apply if there were any adverse effects of the vaccine on adolescent girls.

(Rh/ARC/MSM)