To

The __________________,

__________________________________,

Date:

Subject: Exemption from Covid -19 Vaccine without being discriminated.

Respected Sir/ Madam,

I ______________ a respected citizen of India and resident of

Union of India says Vaccine is Voluntary

1. We respectfully submit that the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare on its website

under the heading “Frequently Asked Questions on Covid-19 Vaccine” has stated

that the Covid-19 vaccine is voluntary. The link to the FAQ’s Ministry of Health and

Family welfare (MOHFW) is asunder: Annexure 1.

https://www.mohfw.gov.in/pdf/FAQsonCOVID19VaccineDecember2020.pdf

2. Further in a reply to RTI application dated 9th March 2021 filed by Anurag Sinha of

Jharkhand, the Central Ministry of Health and Family Welfare has stated very clearly

that “taking the Covid Vaccines was entirely voluntary and there is no relation

whatsoever to provision of government facilities, citizenship, job etc to the vaccine”.

The true copy of the RTI reply dated 09.03.21 is attached below.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1INGPmkjEbuo-Hlm-wFnoP_MiPwr94Qz4/view?usp=drivesdk

3. In a reply dated 23rd March 2021 to the RTI filed by Mr. Dinesh Bhausaheb Solanke,

RTI number A.60011/06/2020 -CVAC, the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare,

stated that, “the Covid-19 Vaccine being voluntary, there is no provision for

compensation as of now.” The true copy of the RTI reply dated 23.03.21 is attached below

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1IUy1g3mgOe4Y_3m3XcJ2rgeEUURQ3Xec/view?usp=drivesdk

4. In a reply to RTI filed by Mr. Tarun, dated 16-04-2021 file number

st

question, “Is Covid Vaccine Voluntary or Mandatory?”, thus: “Vaccination for Covid-

19 is Voluntary”. Further when the applicant asked in his subsequent questions,

“Can any government or private organization hold our salary or terminate us from

job in case of not taking Covid vaccine?” and “Can government cancel any kind of

government facilities such as subsidies, ration and medical facilities in case of not

taking covid vaccine?” the reply was, “In view of above reply, these queries do not

arise”. The true copy of the RTI reply dated 16.04.21 is attached below.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1IMG4GOvxRz3g0Aosy51K3z-SyYKJhIO0/view?usp=drivesdk

5. Indian Citizens have a right to receive treatment of his choice and

vaccination cannot be forced upon him. Making vaccine mandatory and forcing

upon an individual will be contrary to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in

Common Cause Case, where Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that an individual has

right over his/her own body and the right to decide the medical treatment for

themselves.

5.1.The Ministry of Health and Family Welfare on its website under the heading

“Frequently Asked Questions on Covid-19 Vaccine” has stated that the Covid-19

vaccine is voluntary. This clearly suggest that as per central government vaccine

is voluntary and not mandatory for individuals in the country.

5.2.India has made the vaccination drive completely voluntary and therefore

(decision of respondent no. 1 to dismiss the petitioner for refusing to take

vaccine) OR ( Refusing to sit for exams, refusing entry into colleges and schools)

OR ( Withholding salary or pension or legitimate dues )is not only contrary to

the guidelines of the Union of India but violative of Article 14 and 21 of the

Constitution of India.

5.3.Several newspaper reports in the country in past months shows that many

deaths and serious adverse events are reported after taking Covid-19 vaccine.
Thus, citizen should be allowed to choose right to treatment under right to lifeunder Article 14 of the
constitution of India and should not be forced to take the

vaccine which can cause adverse reaction.

5.4. Most, if not all, of the mRNA gene therapies/vaccines are in clinical

trials. They are experimental. There is evidence that there has

been significant adverse events and death around the world and

we fear the long term adverse repercussions may cause significant

harms, injuries and loss.

6. Supreme Court of India’s decision in Common Cause v Union of India (2018)

5 SCC 1

A person has a right to choose medication of his choice

6.1. We respectfully submit that one has a right to receive treatment of his choice and

vaccination cannot be forced upon him. Making vaccine mandatory and forcing upon

an individual will be contrary to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in

Common Cause Case, where Hon’ble Supreme Court on the while discussing an

individual’s right over his/her own body and the right to decide the medical

treatment for themselves held asunder:

“169. In the context of health and medical care decisions, a person's

exercise of self-determination and autonomy involves the exercise of

his right to decide whether and to what extent he/she is willing to

submit himself/herself to medical procedures and treatments, choosing amongst the available
alternative treatments or, for that matter, opting

for no treatment at all which, as per his or her own understanding, is in

consonance with his or her own individual aspirations and values.

202.8. An inquiry into Common Law jurisdictions reveals that all adults

with capacity to consent have the right of self-determination and

autonomy. The said rights pave the way for the right to refuse medical
treatment which has acclaimed universal recognition. A competent

person who has come of age has the right to refuse specific treatment

or all treatment or opt for an alternative treatment, even if such

decision entails a risk of death. The “Emergency Principle” or the

“Principle of Necessity” has to be given effect to only when it is not

practicable to obtain the patient's consent for treatment and his/her life

is in danger. But where a patient has already made a valid Advance

Directive which is free from reasonable doubt and specifying that

he/she does not wish to be treated, then such directive has to be given

effect to.

306. In addition to personal autonomy, other facets of human dignity,

namely, “self-expression” and “right to determine” also support the

argument that it is the choice of the patient to receive or not to

receive treatment.

517. The entitlement of each individual to a dignified existence

necessitates constitutional recognition of the principle that an individual

possessed of a free and competent mental state is entitled to decide

whether or not to accept medical treatment. The right of such an

individual to refuse medical treatment is unconditional. Neither the law

nor the Constitution compel an individual who is competent and able to

take decisions, to disclose the reasons for refusing medical treatment

nor is such a refusal subject to the supervisory control of an outside

entity;

602. Right of self-determination also encompasses in it bodily

integrity. Without consent of an adult person, who is in fit state of mind,

even a surgeon is not authorised to violate the body. Sanctity of the human life is the most fundamental
of the human social values. The
acceptance of human rights and development of its meaning in recent

times has fully recognised the dignity of the individual human being. All

the above three principles enable an adult human being of conscious

mind to take decision regarding extent and manner of taking medical

treatment. An adult human being of conscious mind is fully entitled to

refuse medical treatment or to decide not to take medical treatment

and may decide to embrace the deathin natural way. Euthanasia, as

noted above, as the meaning of the word suggest is an act which leads

to a good death. Some positive act is necessary to characterise the

action as euthanasia. Euthanasia is also commonly called “assisted

suicide” due to the above reasons.”

Meghalaya High Court rules against Mandatory Covid-19 Vaccination

7. As in the case of PIL No.6/2021 filed by Joannes JTL Lamare versus State

of Meghalaya, in the High Court of Meghalaya, presided by Honourable Mr. Justice

Biswanath Somadder, Chief Justice and Hon’ble Mr. Justice H.S. Thangkhiew, Judge

who passed the order on 23rd June, 2021, overruling the state’s attempt to

mandate vaccinations, by stating the following:

7.1.Vaccination by force or being made mandatory by adopting coercive methods,

vitiates the very fundamental purpose of the welfare attached to it. It impinges

on the fundamental right(s) as such, especially when it affects the right to

means of livelihood which makes it possible for a person to live.

7.2.A notification/order of the State certainly cannot put an embargo and/or fetter

on the fundamental right to life of an individual by stripping off his/her right to

livelihood, except according to the procedure established by law. Even that

procedure is required to be reasonable, just and fair (see Olga Tellis, supra). Till

now, there has been no legal mandate whatsoever with regard to coercive or

mandatory vaccination in general and the Covid19 vaccination drive in particular

that can prohibit or take away the livelihood of a citizen on that ground. 7.3.Therefore, right to and the
welfare policy for vaccination can never affect a
major fundamental right; i.e., right to life, personal liberty and livelihood,

especially when there exists no reasonable nexus between vaccination and

prohibition of continuance of occupation and/or profession. A harmonious and

purposive construction of the provisions of law and principles of equity, good

conscience and justice reveals that mandatory or forceful vaccination does not

find any force in law leading to such acts being liable to be declared ultra vires

(beyond the scope or in excess of legal power or authority) ab initio (from

the beginning).

8. In the Guwahati High Court matter Case No. : WP(C)/37/2020 of In Re

Dinthar Incident versus State of Mizoram and 11 Ors, dated 2nd July 2021,

the Honorable Mr. Justice Michael Zothankhuma and Honorable Mr. Justice Nelson

Sailo, in respect of the following clauses of the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP)

dated 29.06.2021:

Clause 5(2): Persons going outside shall mandatorily cover their faces (with

face mask or other materials). In case of compelling circumstances, only

vaccinated individuals of the family members may be detailed for errands

within and around localities having significant COVID-19 active cases.

Clause 6(1): Only vaccinated individuals should be engaged for manning shops

and stores or undertaking any works. Shop/stores attendants and other

employees should be able to produce proof of vaccination, which will be regularly

checked by the police/LLTF/VLTF/COVID-19 executive duty.

Clause 6(5) - Commercial passenger vehicles (city bus, taxi and two-wheeler taxi)

allowed to resume operation shall mandatorily provide hand sanitizer for their

passenger and they shall not exceed their seating capacity. Only Drivers and

conductors who had been vaccinated should be allowed to operate public

transport.”

Ruled as follows:

It has been brought to our notice that even persons who have been vaccinated
can still be infected with the covid virus and spread it to others. So if vaccinated

and un-vaccinated persons can be infected by the covid virus, and if they can

both be spreaders of the virus, the restriction placed only upon the un-vaccinated persons, debarring
them from earning their livelihood or leaving their houses to

obtain essential items is unjustified, grossly unreasonable and arbitrary.

Clauses 5(2), 6(1) and 6(2) violate Article 14 of the Constitution by discriminating

between vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals.

Clause 6(1) and 6(2) violate the fundamental right of a person to practice any

profession, or to carry on any occupation or trade or business under Article

19(1)(g) and his right to livelihood protected by Article 21 of the Constitution

of India.

Furthermore, Article 19(6) of the Constitution states that restrictions can only be

made in the form of a law and not by way of executive instructions by the State

Government via Executive Orders under the Disaster Management Act, 2005,

curtailing the Fundamental Rights of the citizens that are protected by the

Constitution.

We hold that the restrictions placed upon unvaccinated individuals vis-à-vis

vaccinated individuals in terms of Clause 5(2), 6(1), 6(5), Serial No. 31 & 42 of

Annexure-3 of the SOP dated 29.06.2021 are arbitrary and not in consonance

with the provisions of Article 14,19 & 21 of the Constitution. The said impugned

clauses are interfered with, to the extent that the allowances available and given

to vaccinated persons in the above clauses shall also be made equally applicable

to unvaccinated persons. The State respondents are accordingly directed to issue

a corrigendum of the SOP dated 29.06.2021 at the earliest incorporating the

above directions.

KERALA AND DELHI HIGH COURT JUDGEMENTS

In this context, we wish to place on record two judgements in similar

situations, in the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala and the Hon’ble High Court
of Delhi.

9.In the case of WP(C) 36065 of 2017 between the Parents Teachers Association,

Government Higher Secondary School, Kokkur, Kerala and the State of Kerala, the

Hon’ble High Court of Kerala had passed the order:

“If at all any parent has an objection, it has to be necessarily brought

before the authorities, and there need not be any vaccination

administered to such children whose parents object to the

Vaccination”.

10.Also, in the case of W.P.(C) 343/2019 & CM Nos.1604-1605/2019 between Master

Haridaan Kumar (Minor through Petitioners Anubhav Kumar and Mr. Abhinav

Mukherji) Versus Union of India, & W.P.(C) 350/2019 & CM Nos.1642-1644/2019

between Baby Veda Kalaan & Others Versus Director of Education & Others

(Annexure 17)

the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi had observed that:

“The assumption that children could be vaccinated forcibly or without consent is

unsustainable. This Court is of the view that all efforts are required to be made

to obtain the decision of the parents before proceeding with the MR campaign.

In this regard, it would be apposite to ensure that the consent forms/slips are

sent to each and every student. Since the time period for implementing the

campaign is short, the response period should be reduced and parents /

guardians of students must be requested to respond immediately and, in any

case, in not more than three working days. If the consent forms/slips are not

returned by the concerned parent, the class teacher must ensure that the said

parents are contacted telephonically and the decision of such parent is taken on

phone. The concerned teacher ought to keep full records of such decisions

received telephonically. In respect of those parents/guardians that neither return

the consent slips nor are available telephonically despite efforts by the

concerned teacher, their consent can be presumed provided respondent nos. 1

and 2 ensure that full information regarding the commission is provided to all
parents.”

“The contention that indication of the side effects and contraindications in the

advertisement would discourage parents or guardians from consenting to the

MR campaign and, therefore, the same should be avoided, is unmerited. The

entire object of issuing advertisements is to ensure that necessary information is

available to all parents/guardians in order that theycan take an informed

decision. The respondents are not only required to indicate the benefits of the

MR vaccine but also indicate the side effects or contraindications so that the parents/guardians can take
an informed decision whether the vaccine is to be

administered to their wards/children.”

The Hon’ble High Court of Delhi thus passed the following orders:

“MR vaccines will not be administered to those students whose

parents/guardians have declined to give their consent. The said

vaccination will be administered only to those students whose parents have

given their consent either by returning the consent forms or by conforming the

same directly to the class teacher/nodal teacher and also to students whose

parents/guardians cannot be contacted despite best efforts by the class

teacher/nodal teacher and who have otherwise not indicated to the contrary”.

01- Further on the issue of informed consent, the Hon’ble High Court had clearly

directed that:

“Directorate of Family Welfare shall issue quarter page advisements in

various newspapers as indicated by the respondents…The advertisements

shall also indicate that the vaccination shall be administered with Auto

Disable Syringes to the eligible children by Auxiliary Nurse Midwifery. The

advertisement shall also clearly indicate the side effects and

contraindications as may be finalised by the Department of Preventive

Medicine, All India Institute of Medical Sciences”

The above 2 judgements of Hon. Supreme court of India and Hon High

Courts of Kerala and Delhi, clearly states vaccination as voluntary and

India both are saying that vaccination is voluntary.

11.Chances of protection from COVID because of vaccine is 1% published by the Lancet a renowned
science journal

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanmic/article/PIIS2666-5247(21)00069-0/fulltext

12.There have been thousands of cases of deaths and serious adverse events

following vaccination by both COVAXIN and COVISHEILD reported in the

newspapers in India till first week of May 2021. However, the official data shows

that there are only 180 deaths following immunization till March 29th 2021.

Therefore, there appears to be a significant discrepancy between deaths reported in

the newspapers and the official government figure.

13. The below link has a compiled data 2300 deaths as on 22nd June 2021,

newspaper reports reporting deaths alone after administration of vaccine.

This list is updated regularly.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1uikc1a6_KDzUx7HNLrfwaI1NJRt0D_YP/view?usp=sharing

14.The Covid-19 Vaccine provided haven't got full approval instead brought under EUA. These vaccines
haven’t completed clinical trials yet. I and my family don’t consent our body for any kind of clinical
trials. The fact sheets of both vaccines are attached below.

Covid sheild fact sheet

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.seruminstitute.com/pdf/covis
hield_fact_sheet.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwiiu_OYlI7yAhUL7nMBHfN1AlIQFjAAegQIDxAC&usg=AOvVaw1sN-
NRCTp9IBrRasYtv7gl

Covaxin Fact sheet

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.bharatbiotech.com/images/co
vaxin/covaxin-fact-
sheet.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwiDkqK8lI7yAhW04HMBHSwXBggQFjAAegQIAxAC&usg=AOvVaw0k-
UxBMB8U2ggP5utQs9S2
Scientific Fraud with RT-PCR Test

15.The RT-PCR Test takes genetic material from the throat sample that is collected on

the swab, runs it through an enzyme called Reverse Transcriptase to convert the RNA

from the virus into DNA, & then multiplies the DNA exponentially to find if fragments

of the Sars-Cov-2 virus are present in the person or not. Since complete live viruses

are necessary for transmission & not their fragments, the PCR test is not designed

to tell us whether someone has an active Sars-Cov-2 infection or not.

Karry Mullis, an American Biochemist who got the Nobel Prize for his invention of the

PCR technique, said the following about the PCR test: “With PCR, if you do it well, you

can find almost anything in anybody. It doesn’t tell you that you’re sick, & it doesn’t tell

you that the thing you ended up with really was going to hurt you. I’m sceptical that any

PCR test is ever true.”

43.The RT-PCR method of testing has been recommended by ICMR for checking Covid-

19 status since Mar 20201. This testing method is ordered by Ministry of Health and

Family Welfare on 21st March 2020. The basis for using RT-PCR testing around the

world and in India is the publication titled "Detection of 2019 novel coronavirus

(2019-nCoV) by real-time RT-PCR" in Jan 2020 where the authors present a protocol

for detection and diagnostics of 2019-nCoV (now known as SARS-CoV-2, which is the

name given to the virus that is said to be causing Covid-19) 1. This protocol is also

available on WHO website.

A major issue with this publication is that the authors artificially simulated the novel

Coronavirus that closely matched the viral genome sequence (genetic formula) given

by the Chinese authorities. The authors developed clinical samples by using related

viruses (such as the viruses responsible for SARS, MERS and similar respiratory

diseases) from biobanks. The RNA extracted from such artificially created samples

was used to design the RT-PCR test. The authors state:

"In the present case of 2019-nCoV, virus isolates or samples from infected patients

have so far not become available to the international public health community. We

report here on the establishment and validation of a diagnostic workflow for 2019-
nCoV screening and specific confirmation, designed in absence of available virus

isolates or original patient specimens. Design and validation were enabled by the

close genetic relatedness to the 2003 SARS-CoV, and aided by the use of synthetic

nucleic acid technology."

A diagnostic test kit that was designed without the availability of the live pathogen

to be detected cannot be an accurate test.

The RT-PCR test is done by taking a swab sample from the individual’s nose or throat.

In the laboratory, this sample is used to extract the viral RNA (ribonucleic acid). The

RNA then undergoes the RT-PCR technique which creates strands of viral DNA

(deoxyribonucleic acid). The DNA strand is run through several cycles of PCR for it to

replicate itself. The cycle threshold value or Ct value is the number of cycles that it

takes for the DNA to reach a detectable level. An article was published in Oxford Academic – Clinical
Infectious Diseases1on the

correlation between 3790 RT-PCR positive samples and positive cell cultures

including 1941 SARS-CoV-2 isolates. In this study the researchers compared the RT-

PCR test against the gold standard test i.e. viral culture. The researchers found that

at a cycle threshold (Ct) of 25, the RT-PCR test was 70 % reliable, a figure that

dropped to 20 % at 30 cycles, and just 3% at 35 cycles. That meant 97 % were false

positives at 35 cycles. Link: https://doi.org/10.1093/cid/ciaa1491

Dr. KK Aggarwal, late President of Heart Care Foundation of India, late President of

Confederation of Medical Association of Asia and Oceania, and past president of the

Indian Medical Association, said that if the Ct value is above 24, it is likely that the

persons viral load is really less and that he won’t pass on the infection to anyone

else, and if the value is less than 24 then it is highly likely that they are infectious.

Article link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qwj0Iq1DoyA

The testing approach of ICMR is to use RT-PCR cycle threshold (Ct) value of 35, but

this has been proven by the studies comparing RT-PCR test to gold standard to have

97% false positives. The testing approach of ICMR gives an inflated figure of the

number of Covid-19 cases including asymptomatic cases. Website of ICMR1 shows

nor does their website offers any scientific reasons for their decision to select cycle

threshold value (Ct) of 35. https://www.icmr.gov.in/cpapers.html

An editorial in The British Medical Journal in December, 2020 titled Asymptomatic

transmission of covid-19” 1made these comments:

”It’s also unclear to what extent people with no symptoms transmit SARS-CoV-2. The

only test for live virus is viral culture. PCR and lateral flow tests do not distinguish live

virus. No test of infection or infectiousness is currently available for routine use. As

things stand, a person who tests positive with any kind of test may or may not have

an active infection with live virus, and may or may not be infectious.” Article Link:

https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.m4851

According to data from one of the test kits approved by the ICMR called: “TaqMan

2019-nCoV Control Kit v1” by the company ThermoFisher Scientific, it clearly

states: “For Research Use Only. Not for use in diagnostic procedures.”

Another Company Altona Diagnostics, whose RT PCR Test Kit has been approved

by ICMR in its published list dated 23/04/2020, says that the kit is not for

diagnostic procedures. The same can be found on the websites of many of the test

kits approved by the ICMR.

According to Public Health England: “RT-PCR detects presence of viral genetic

material in a sample, but it is not able to distinguish whether infectious virus is

present.” Another expert on the PCR & American Biochemist, David Rasnick PhD, said the

following: “PCR is a great scientific research tool; it’s a horrible tool for clinical

medicine. It will generate a huge number of false positives.

To summarize RT-PCR tests are predominantly used worldwide and in India to test for

Covid-19. However, the test inventor, test manufacturers and regulators such as FDA

have said that the test is not intended to be used as the only tool for diagnosis.

Scientific studies have shown that the high Cycle threshold value (Ct) of 35 that is

guided by ICMR, results in 97% false positives. Studies have also shown that positively

tested asymptomatic people have higher Ct values compared to Ct values of positively

asymptomatic people are highly infectious during incubation period are flawed. Thus,

when an asymptomatic or pre-symptomatic person tests positive and the person

shows no symptom of illness then, it is fallacious to assume that such a person is

transmitting the virus.

Furthermore, the RT-PCR Test for many cases across the world showed positive at

one time and negative after a few hours, which is impossible. The test proves time

and again that it gives false results, unless its CT value is 24 cycles or lower.

Therefore, falsely declaring uninfected people as COVID +ve via a test that gives 97%

false positives and putting them in treatment wards for other Covid +ve patients is a

complete crime, and in fact, constitutes an attempt to inflict serious harm or even

death from Covid. Furthermore, it causes uninfected people monetary loss and

immense mental trauma, whilst also damaging their family life and their work life.

Worse even is that it creates extreme panic in society of a high number of infected

people, which is completely false. RT-PCR Test run at Ct values more than 24 cycles

are a medical fraud and must be banned.

16.In a RTI reply dated 01/06/2021, to RTI filed by Shri. Manindra Kumar, RTI number
AIIMS/BPL/RTI/HOSP/2021/206, AIIMS Bhopal, stated that, " RT- PCR/ Rapid antigen testing is not
mandatory for everyone in India. It is voluntary." The true copy is attached below.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1HfpvJoc3nXqxMshgOICcLT69P79TZNW8/view?usp=drivesdk

Yours faithfully

_____________

______________