Kerala High Court upholds vaccination rule for Rs 6,000 PMMVY maternity benefits

“None compels or forces the petitioner to provide vaccination to his child. However, unless such vaccination is taken, the petitioner’s wife cannot become entitled for the benefit under the PMMVY scheme. A beneficiary who claims entitlement for distribution of the benefit must satisfy, strictly, the conditions for the grant of the benefit. There is no fundamental right for any person to receive the benefit due under the PMMVY scheme and therefore, prescribing eligibility conditions cannot be regarded as constitutionally invalid,” the court said on August 18.

The case arose after the petitioner’s wife gave birth to their second child, a girl, on September 3, 2024. Following this, he was informed that the benefit would be provided only on production of a vaccination certificate. The man issued a legal notice on October 23, 2025, stating that insisting on vaccination as a condition for the benefit was an “intrusion” on personal liberty.

Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas said parents are not forced to vaccinate their child, but must meet the condition to claim the PMMVY benefit. (Image enhanced using AI)

PMMVY rules

The PMMVY scheme was launched on January 1, 2017, under Section 4 of the National Food Security Act, 2013, to implement maternity benefit provisions under the Act. The court noted that the benefit is subject to schemes framed by the Central government and is not an unconditional payment.

The Pradhan Mantri Matru Vandana Yojana Rules, 2022, which were notified on December 22, 2022, state that under Rule 7, a Rs 6,000 benefit is available for a second living child if the second child is a girl and the prescribed conditions are fulfilled.

However, one condition is that the girl child must receive all due vaccines until she attains 14 weeks of age, as admissible under the Universal Immunization Programme of the Union Ministry of Health and Family Welfare.

“The PMMVY scheme nowhere states that it is an absolute right conferred upon every lactating mother to be given the benefit under the scheme. The PMMVY scheme itself is formulated in such a manner that it is conditional and unless the conditions specified therein are fulfilled, no one can claim the benefit. The choice is upon each individual to claim the benefit due under the PMMVY scheme,” the court said.

No physical compulsion to vaccinate

The petitioner argued that making vaccination a condition for the cash benefit amounted to compelling him to vaccinate his child and violated Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. The Central government submitted before the court that vaccination remained voluntary and that there was no physical compulsion to vaccinate. However, failure to fulfil this condition would make the beneficiary ineligible for the conditional cash transfer.

Accepting this argument, the high court noted that the child had not received the required vaccination within 14 weeks of birth and said that the petitioner’s wife could not claim the benefit without satisfying the condition.

Article 21 challenge rejected

The petitioner relied on the Supreme Court’s 2022 judgment in Jacob Puliyel vs Union of India, which recognised bodily integrity and personal autonomy under Article 21, including the right to refuse medical treatment.

The high court said the reliance was misplaced because Jacob Puliyel arose in the context of Covid-19 vaccination and could not be treated as a broad precedent against routine childhood vaccination. The court also noted that the Supreme Court had recognised circumstances in which reasonable restrictions could be imposed for public health.

The high court further noted that the Universal Immunization Programme provides vaccination free of cost to children against several vaccine-preventable diseases. It held that the government’s measures to promote vaccination through PMMVY could not be described as unconstitutional, arbitrary or violative of Articles 14 and 21.

The court also held that the petition itself was not maintainable because the PMMVY benefit is intended for the mother and is to be transferred directly to her bank account. The petitioner, merely by claiming to be the father, had no legally enforceable right to claim the benefit.

“If the petitioner wants to avail the benefit under the PMMVY scheme, necessarily, he has to satisfy the conditions of eligibility. Hence the relief sought for in the writ petition cannot be granted,” it said, dismissing the writ petition.