Question Description
The Supreme Court on Monday upheld the right of an individual against forcible vaccination and the government’s COVID­19 vaccination policy to protect communitarian health, but found certain vaccine mandates imposed by the State governments and Union Territory administrations disproportionate as they tend to deny access to basic welfare measures and freedom of movement to unvaccinated individuals. A Bench led by Justice L. Nageswara Rao said such mandates wilted in the face of “emerging scientific opinion” that the risk of transmission of the infection from unvaccinated individuals was almost on a par with that from those vaccinated. “With respect to bodily integrity and personal autonomy of an individual in the light of vaccines and other public health measures introduced to deal with the COVID­19 pandemic, we are of the opinion that bodily integrity is protected under Article [X] of the Constitution and no individual can be forced to be vaccinated,” the court said. The court struck a balance between individual right to bodily integrity and refuse treatment with the government’s concern for public health. A person has the right under [X] to refuse treatment, it said. “Personal autonomy of an individual, which is a recognised facet of protection guaranteed under [X] encompasses the right to refuse to undergo any medical treatment in the sphere of individual health,” Justice Rao observed.Q. Which of the following is not a three fold test requirement of the judgement?a)The state’s infringement must be proportional to its aim.b)The activity must be backed by a law,c)This restriction on the freedom of speech of any citizen may be imposed as much by an action of the State as by its inaction.d)The state must have a legitimate interest to bring such a law that collides with fundamental right.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? for CLAT 2024 is part of CLAT preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the CLAT exam syllabus. Information about The Supreme Court on Monday upheld the right of an individual against forcible vaccination and the government’s COVID­19 vaccination policy to protect communitarian health, but found certain vaccine mandates imposed by the State governments and Union Territory administrations disproportionate as they tend to deny access to basic welfare measures and freedom of movement to unvaccinated individuals. A Bench led by Justice L. Nageswara Rao said such mandates wilted in the face of “emerging scientific opinion” that the risk of transmission of the infection from unvaccinated individuals was almost on a par with that from those vaccinated. “With respect to bodily integrity and personal autonomy of an individual in the light of vaccines and other public health measures introduced to deal with the COVID­19 pandemic, we are of the opinion that bodily integrity is protected under Article [X] of the Constitution and no individual can be forced to be vaccinated,” the court said. The court struck a balance between individual right to bodily integrity and refuse treatment with the government’s concern for public health. A person has the right under [X] to refuse treatment, it said. “Personal autonomy of an individual, which is a recognised facet of protection guaranteed under [X] encompasses the right to refuse to undergo any medical treatment in the sphere of individual health,” Justice Rao observed.Q. Which of the following is not a three fold test requirement of the judgement?a)The state’s infringement must be proportional to its aim.b)The activity must be backed by a law,c)This restriction on the freedom of speech of any citizen may be imposed as much by an action of the State as by its inaction.d)The state must have a legitimate interest to bring such a law that collides with fundamental right.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for CLAT 2024 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for The Supreme Court on Monday upheld the right of an individual against forcible vaccination and the government’s COVID­19 vaccination policy to protect communitarian health, but found certain vaccine mandates imposed by the State governments and Union Territory administrations disproportionate as they tend to deny access to basic welfare measures and freedom of movement to unvaccinated individuals. A Bench led by Justice L. Nageswara Rao said such mandates wilted in the face of “emerging scientific opinion” that the risk of transmission of the infection from unvaccinated individuals was almost on a par with that from those vaccinated. “With respect to bodily integrity and personal autonomy of an individual in the light of vaccines and other public health measures introduced to deal with the COVID­19 pandemic, we are of the opinion that bodily integrity is protected under Article [X] of the Constitution and no individual can be forced to be vaccinated,” the court said. The court struck a balance between individual right to bodily integrity and refuse treatment with the government’s concern for public health. A person has the right under [X] to refuse treatment, it said. “Personal autonomy of an individual, which is a recognised facet of protection guaranteed under [X] encompasses the right to refuse to undergo any medical treatment in the sphere of individual health,” Justice Rao observed.Q. Which of the following is not a three fold test requirement of the judgement?a)The state’s infringement must be proportional to its aim.b)The activity must be backed by a law,c)This restriction on the freedom of speech of any citizen may be imposed as much by an action of the State as by its inaction.d)The state must have a legitimate interest to bring such a law that collides with fundamental right.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?.

Solutions for The Supreme Court on Monday upheld the right of an individual against forcible vaccination and the government’s COVID­19 vaccination policy to protect communitarian health, but found certain vaccine mandates imposed by the State governments and Union Territory administrations disproportionate as they tend to deny access to basic welfare measures and freedom of movement to unvaccinated individuals. A Bench led by Justice L. Nageswara Rao said such mandates wilted in the face of “emerging scientific opinion” that the risk of transmission of the infection from unvaccinated individuals was almost on a par with that from those vaccinated. “With respect to bodily integrity and personal autonomy of an individual in the light of vaccines and other public health measures introduced to deal with the COVID­19 pandemic, we are of the opinion that bodily integrity is protected under Article [X] of the Constitution and no individual can be forced to be vaccinated,” the court said. The court struck a balance between individual right to bodily integrity and refuse treatment with the government’s concern for public health. A person has the right under [X] to refuse treatment, it said. “Personal autonomy of an individual, which is a recognised facet of protection guaranteed under [X] encompasses the right to refuse to undergo any medical treatment in the sphere of individual health,” Justice Rao observed.Q. Which of the following is not a three fold test requirement of the judgement?a)The state’s infringement must be proportional to its aim.b)The activity must be backed by a law,c)This restriction on the freedom of speech of any citizen may be imposed as much by an action of the State as by its inaction.d)The state must have a legitimate interest to bring such a law that collides with fundamental right.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? in English & in Hindi are available as part of our courses for CLAT. Download more important topics, notes, lectures and mock test series for CLAT Exam by signing up for free.

Here you can find the meaning of The Supreme Court on Monday upheld the right of an individual against forcible vaccination and the government’s COVID­19 vaccination policy to protect communitarian health, but found certain vaccine mandates imposed by the State governments and Union Territory administrations disproportionate as they tend to deny access to basic welfare measures and freedom of movement to unvaccinated individuals. A Bench led by Justice L. Nageswara Rao said such mandates wilted in the face of “emerging scientific opinion” that the risk of transmission of the infection from unvaccinated individuals was almost on a par with that from those vaccinated. “With respect to bodily integrity and personal autonomy of an individual in the light of vaccines and other public health measures introduced to deal with the COVID­19 pandemic, we are of the opinion that bodily integrity is protected under Article [X] of the Constitution and no individual can be forced to be vaccinated,” the court said. The court struck a balance between individual right to bodily integrity and refuse treatment with the government’s concern for public health. A person has the right under [X] to refuse treatment, it said. “Personal autonomy of an individual, which is a recognised facet of protection guaranteed under [X] encompasses the right to refuse to undergo any medical treatment in the sphere of individual health,” Justice Rao observed.Q. Which of the following is not a three fold test requirement of the judgement?a)The state’s infringement must be proportional to its aim.b)The activity must be backed by a law,c)This restriction on the freedom of speech of any citizen may be imposed as much by an action of the State as by its inaction.d)The state must have a legitimate interest to bring such a law that collides with fundamental right.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of The Supreme Court on Monday upheld the right of an individual against forcible vaccination and the government’s COVID­19 vaccination policy to protect communitarian health, but found certain vaccine mandates imposed by the State governments and Union Territory administrations disproportionate as they tend to deny access to basic welfare measures and freedom of movement to unvaccinated individuals. A Bench led by Justice L. Nageswara Rao said such mandates wilted in the face of “emerging scientific opinion” that the risk of transmission of the infection from unvaccinated individuals was almost on a par with that from those vaccinated. “With respect to bodily integrity and personal autonomy of an individual in the light of vaccines and other public health measures introduced to deal with the COVID­19 pandemic, we are of the opinion that bodily integrity is protected under Article [X] of the Constitution and no individual can be forced to be vaccinated,” the court said. The court struck a balance between individual right to bodily integrity and refuse treatment with the government’s concern for public health. A person has the right under [X] to refuse treatment, it said. “Personal autonomy of an individual, which is a recognised facet of protection guaranteed under [X] encompasses the right to refuse to undergo any medical treatment in the sphere of individual health,” Justice Rao observed.Q. Which of the following is not a three fold test requirement of the judgement?a)The state’s infringement must be proportional to its aim.b)The activity must be backed by a law,c)This restriction on the freedom of speech of any citizen may be imposed as much by an action of the State as by its inaction.d)The state must have a legitimate interest to bring such a law that collides with fundamental right.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for The Supreme Court on Monday upheld the right of an individual against forcible vaccination and the government’s COVID­19 vaccination policy to protect communitarian health, but found certain vaccine mandates imposed by the State governments and Union Territory administrations disproportionate as they tend to deny access to basic welfare measures and freedom of movement to unvaccinated individuals. A Bench led by Justice L. Nageswara Rao said such mandates wilted in the face of “emerging scientific opinion” that the risk of transmission of the infection from unvaccinated individuals was almost on a par with that from those vaccinated. “With respect to bodily integrity and personal autonomy of an individual in the light of vaccines and other public health measures introduced to deal with the COVID­19 pandemic, we are of the opinion that bodily integrity is protected under Article [X] of the Constitution and no individual can be forced to be vaccinated,” the court said. The court struck a balance between individual right to bodily integrity and refuse treatment with the government’s concern for public health. A person has the right under [X] to refuse treatment, it said. “Personal autonomy of an individual, which is a recognised facet of protection guaranteed under [X] encompasses the right to refuse to undergo any medical treatment in the sphere of individual health,” Justice Rao observed.Q. Which of the following is not a three fold test requirement of the judgement?a)The state’s infringement must be proportional to its aim.b)The activity must be backed by a law,c)This restriction on the freedom of speech of any citizen may be imposed as much by an action of the State as by its inaction.d)The state must have a legitimate interest to bring such a law that collides with fundamental right.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of The Supreme Court on Monday upheld the right of an individual against forcible vaccination and the government’s COVID­19 vaccination policy to protect communitarian health, but found certain vaccine mandates imposed by the State governments and Union Territory administrations disproportionate as they tend to deny access to basic welfare measures and freedom of movement to unvaccinated individuals. A Bench led by Justice L. Nageswara Rao said such mandates wilted in the face of “emerging scientific opinion” that the risk of transmission of the infection from unvaccinated individuals was almost on a par with that from those vaccinated. “With respect to bodily integrity and personal autonomy of an individual in the light of vaccines and other public health measures introduced to deal with the COVID­19 pandemic, we are of the opinion that bodily integrity is protected under Article [X] of the Constitution and no individual can be forced to be vaccinated,” the court said. The court struck a balance between individual right to bodily integrity and refuse treatment with the government’s concern for public health. A person has the right under [X] to refuse treatment, it said. “Personal autonomy of an individual, which is a recognised facet of protection guaranteed under [X] encompasses the right to refuse to undergo any medical treatment in the sphere of individual health,” Justice Rao observed.Q. Which of the following is not a three fold test requirement of the judgement?a)The state’s infringement must be proportional to its aim.b)The activity must be backed by a law,c)This restriction on the freedom of speech of any citizen may be imposed as much by an action of the State as by its inaction.d)The state must have a legitimate interest to bring such a law that collides with fundamental right.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice The Supreme Court on Monday upheld the right of an individual against forcible vaccination and the government’s COVID­19 vaccination policy to protect communitarian health, but found certain vaccine mandates imposed by the State governments and Union Territory administrations disproportionate as they tend to deny access to basic welfare measures and freedom of movement to unvaccinated individuals. A Bench led by Justice L. Nageswara Rao said such mandates wilted in the face of “emerging scientific opinion” that the risk of transmission of the infection from unvaccinated individuals was almost on a par with that from those vaccinated. “With respect to bodily integrity and personal autonomy of an individual in the light of vaccines and other public health measures introduced to deal with the COVID­19 pandemic, we are of the opinion that bodily integrity is protected under Article [X] of the Constitution and no individual can be forced to be vaccinated,” the court said. The court struck a balance between individual right to bodily integrity and refuse treatment with the government’s concern for public health. A person has the right under [X] to refuse treatment, it said. “Personal autonomy of an individual, which is a recognised facet of protection guaranteed under [X] encompasses the right to refuse to undergo any medical treatment in the sphere of individual health,” Justice Rao observed.Q. Which of the following is not a three fold test requirement of the judgement?a)The state’s infringement must be proportional to its aim.b)The activity must be backed by a law,c)This restriction on the freedom of speech of any citizen may be imposed as much by an action of the State as by its inaction.d)The state must have a legitimate interest to bring such a law that collides with fundamental right.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CLAT tests.