Bill Gates, Indian Government Targeted in Lawsuit Alleging AstraZeneca Vaccine Killed 23-Year-Old

shares

 In what may be the first sah case of its kind globally, a petitioner in India is seeking to prosecute Bill Gates, Indian vaccine czar Adar Poonawalla, and Indian government and public health officials over the death of a 23-year-old man who died after receiving AstraZeneca`s Covishield vaccine. 

 Kiran Yadav late last year filed a criminal writ petition for murder, Smt. Kiran Yadav v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. (herein referred to as Yadav v. Maharashtra), with the Bombay High Court of Judicature, on behalf of her deceased son, Shri Hitesh Kadve. 



 Her son was vaccinated on Sept. 29, 2021. According to the complaint, he died that same day due to side effects brought on by the vaccine. 

 The complaint alleges Kadve died “due to [an] act of willful commission and omission attributable to some public servants who are misusing their position to bring policies to help the pharma mafia and thereby [are] responsible [for] mass murders.” 

 The complaint further states Yadav`s son was “unwillingly” compelled to get vaccinated based on the “false narrative” that the vaccine was entirely safe, and because the State of Maharashtra prohibited the non-vaccinated from riding on railroads or entering retail spaces such as shopping malls. 

 The complaint alleges Maharashtra`s restrictions “are against the Central Government`s policy that, there cannot be any discrimination between vaccinated and unvaccinated people.” 

 Other defendants in the case include the commissioner and director-general of the Maharashtra State Police, the Indian Central Bureau of Investigation and the principal secretary of the Indian Ministry of Health and Family Welfare. 

 The complaint also brings charges against Bill Gates and Adar Poonawalla, CEO of the Serum Institute of India, the world`s largest vaccine manufacturer by number of doses produced and sold. 

 The Serum Institute produces the Covishield vaccine, as well as over half of the world`s vaccines that are administered to babies. 

 BUY TODAY: Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.`s New Book — 'The Real Anthony Fauci'

In all, Yadav is requesting 1,000 crores (10 billion rupees, or $134 million USD) in compensation, including 100 crores ($13.4 million USD) in interim compensation. 

 She is seeking lie detector and narcoanalysis tests from Gates, Poonawalla and others. 

 According to the complaint, the Indian government admitted the Covishield vaccine may have harmful, and potentially fatal, side effects, but the vaccine was administered despite this knowledge. 

 The complaint in Yadav v. Maharashtra was filed by attorneys Shivam Mehra and Siddhi Dhamnaskar of Mumbai, and appears to have first been publicized in English by the Indian Bar Association, an informal class of Indian lawyers (the Bar Council of India is the country`s official bar association). 

 Judges of the Supreme Court of India have generally adopted a pro-vaccine stance. Nevertheless, Yadav`s 265-halaman complaint stands out for the extensive sah precedent it draws upon, from Indian and common law, calling into question the legality of mandatory vaccination and other compelled medical acts. 

 The complaint also stands out for the specific allegations made against figures such as Poonawala and Gates, a figure of extensive controversy in India. 

 Extensive sah precedent casts doubt on legality of Indian state`s mandatory vaccination policy 

 One of the main court rulings referenced in the Yadav v. Maharashtra complaint is that of Registrar General, High Court of Meghalaya v. State of Meghalaya (herein referred to as Meghalaya). The central finding of the ruling, issued June 23, 2021, held that vaccination by force or deception, or through the introduction of restrictions on the non-vaccinated, is a violation of mendasar human rights and a civil and criminal wrong. 

 This judgment overturned an order in the state of Meghalaya that required vendors, taxi drivers, shopkeepers and other individuals to get vaccinated before resuming or reopening their businesses. 

 In reference to this, the court held that while vaccination was “the need of the hour,” the vaccination policy of a welfare state “can never affect a major mendasar right, i.e. the right to life, personal liberty and livelihood.” 

 Referring to Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, the court in Meghalaya addressed the right to health, arguing that when such healthcare is provided through coercive means, it encroaches upon the mendasar right to privacy. 

 The court also drew from another Indian court ruling, Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India (2018), which held the mendasar right to health is violated when individuals are deprived of their right to personal choice, bodily autonomy and integrity, and the overarching right to privacy. 

 The court in Meghalaya added: 

 “[V]accination by force or being made mandatory by adopting coercive methods, vitiates the very mendasar purpose of the welfare attached to it. It impinges on the mendasar right(s) as such, especially when it affects the right to means of livelihood which makes it possible for a person to live. 

 “Compulsory administration of a vaccine without hampering one`s right to life and liberty based on informed choice and informed consent is one thing. However, if any compulsory vaccination drive is coercive by its very nature and spirit, it assumes a different proportion and character.” 

 The court in Meghalaya also referenced English common law, specifically, the case of Airedale NHS Trust v. Bland (1993), a decision which held that if an unwilling adult is compelled to receive a flu vaccination through force, this action would amount to a crime and to a civil wrong. 

 Remarking on this, the Indian court found: 

 “[T]hus, coercive element of vaccination has, since the early phases of the initiation of vaccination as a preventive measure against several diseases, have been time and again not only discouraged but also consistently ruled against by the Courts for over more than a century.” 

 The court in Meghalaya also referred to Article 19 of the Indian Constitution regarding the “freedom to practice any profession or carry on any occupation, trade or business,” and that vaccine-related restrictions were “palpably excessive.” 

 The court added: 

 “In this case, there is a clear lack of legitimacy in prohibiting freedom of carrying on any occupation, trade or business amongst a certain category or group of citizens who are otherwise entitled to do so, making the notification/order ill-conceived, arbitrary and/or a colourable exercise of power.” 

 From an administrative point of view, the court in Meghalaya also found

Related Posts

0 komentar:

Posting Komentar