The case has also received support from Robert Kennedy Jr., a close associate of United States President Donald Trump, and has been reported in detail by his organisation, Children’s Health Defense, USA.
Following the order of the High Court, all proceedings shall now continue before the Trial Court, and the claim of the Petitioner, Smt. Kiran Yadav, seeking compensation of ₹100 Crores from the accused for the loss of her only earning 23-year-old son, shall be considered by the Trial Court under Section 357(3) CrPC.
In addition, she shall also be entitled to receive compensation from the Central Government in terms of “No Fault Compensation,” as per the directions in Rachna Gangu v. Union of India.
The Bombay High Court, after hearing various advocates and considering the material proofs placed on record by Adv. Nilesh Ojha on behalf of the Awaken India Movement, has granted liberty to the petitioner to file a complaint case under Sections 302, 409, 420, 120B, 34, and 107 of the Indian Penal Code against vaccine manufacturers, certain public health institutions, technology platforms, and senior government health officials, including Dr. V.G. Somani, Dr. Randeep Guleria, Dr. Gagandeep Kang, and Dr. Balram Bhargav, among others.
The allegations underlying the proposed complaint are that vaccination was made effectively mandatory by falsely representing to the public that the vaccines were completely safe, while deliberately suppressing knowledge of death-causing and other dangerous side effects? It is further alleged that YouTube, acting in concert with the other accused, systematically deleted videos disclosing fatal and serious adverse effects of the vaccines, whilst actively promoting a one-sided narrative calculated to deceive the public and advance a false propaganda in favour of mass vaccination.
The allegations underlying the complaint dated 25.10.2021 are that vaccination was made effectively mandatory by falsely representing to the public that the vaccines were completely safe, while deliberately suppressing knowledge of death-causing and other dangerous side effects? It is further alleged that social media platforms like YouTube, acting in concert with the other accused, systematically deleted videos disclosing fatal and serious adverse effects of the vaccines, whilst actively promoting a one-sided narrative calculated to deceive the public and advance a false propaganda in favour of mass vaccination? The complainant alleges that the deaths resulting from this calculated suppression and misrepresentation constitute a case of mass murder.
It is of seminal legal significance that the order dated 22.04.2026 has been rendered by a Larger Division Bench, and in accordance with the well-settled doctrine of precedential hierarchy, the pronouncement of a larger Bench unquestionably prevails over, and impliedly overrides, any contrary observations made by the smaller bench. Consequently, the observations contained in the order dated 05.06.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge, Justice Riyaz Chagla—wherein it was stated that Adar Poonawalla and Serum Institute of India cannot be described as “mass murderers”—stand eclipsed, rendered otiose, and devoid of binding effect in the eyes of law.
The grant of liberty by the Larger Division Bench to initiate a criminal complaint in respect of the so-called “vaccine murder” case is, in itself, a compelling judicial indicator that the Court, upon a prima facie evaluation of the material on record, has found sufficient grounds warranting further criminal inquiry. This position is further reinforced by the authoritative pronouncement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rachna Gangu v. Union of India, which, read in conjunction with the evidentiary material placed on record, appears to have materially influenced the High Court in recognizing the seriousness of the allegations pertaining to adverse and potentially fatal effects associated with COVID-19 vaccines.
In this backdrop, the Larger Bench’s order must be construed as having not only superseded the earlier observations of the learned Single Judge, but also as acknowledging, at least at a prima facie level, the allegations that COVID-19 vaccines were promoted under representations of complete safety, allegedly accompanied by suppression of material facts concerning serious side effects, and further enforced through mandates subsequently held to be unlawful and unconstitutional.
Accordingly, the impugned order constitutes a substantial legal setback for Adar Poonawalla and Serum Institute of India, as it opens the door for the initiation of criminal proceedings and strengthens the legal basis for examining their potential criminal liability in relation to the allegations in question.
Division Bench of the Bombay High Court, vide its order dated 22.04.2026, permitted the petitioner Kiran Yadav to file her vaccine murder complaint before the competent Magistrate, based on her complaint dated 25.10.2021. In the said complaint, she has furnished detailed proof against the accused, demonstrating how they conspired with one another to promote faulty, death-causing vaccines as completely safe — allegedly to serve the interests of the vaccine and pharma lobby and accused such as Bill Gates and Adar Poonawalla? It is noteworthy that a prosecution has already been ordered against the Serum Institute, Adar Poonawalla, Cyrus Poonawalla, and others for playing a fraud upon the court by denying the established fact that the Covishield vaccine was banned in twenty-one European countries on account of its death-causing side effects, and for promoting the said faulty vaccine in India for commercial gain. The findings recorded by that court remain undisturbed to date? The findings recorded by that court remain undisturbed to date. The then Maharashtra State Government Chief Secretary Santaram Kunte and others are also named as accused for making vaccination mandatory as a condition for all public movement — including travel by local train, entry to shopping malls, public places, offices, and places of employment — thereby compelling the poor and the common man to submit to vaccination, which, the complainant alleges, had no proven efficacy in protecting against COVID-19 or preventing its transmission.
Justice Gadkari’s Question — Adv. Ojha’s Response: How the Bench Was Convinced
During the hearing, Justice Gadkari posed a sharp and crucial question: Even if a vaccine could potentially cause death, how can a case of murder be made out? The judges themselves have taken the vaccine, crores of people have taken it and are alive—so what is the evidence and what legal provision supports such a charge?
Responding to this, Advocate Nilesh Ojha placed substantial material and relied upon Supreme Court precedents before the Court. He pointed out that several countries have imposed restrictions on certain vaccines, including Covishield, citing serious adverse effects. He further submitted that the Government of India itself has acknowledged before the Supreme Court that vaccines may, in rare cases, be associated with fatalities.
He also relied on Rachna Gangu v. Union of India (2026 INSC 218), wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court recognized that in cases of alleged vaccine-related deaths, every citizen has the right to seek legal remedies, including compensation.
The Core Argument That Shook the Court
Advocate Nilesh Ojha advanced a deeply serious and striking submission:
If the accused had prior knowledge that the vaccine could lead to severe adverse effects, including risk of death, then it was their primary legal and moral duty to immediately halt its use and fully disclose the risks to the public.
However, according to the allegations, the exact opposite was done—
the risks were allegedly suppressed, the vaccine was aggressively promoted as “completely safe,” and through various restrictions, conditions, and coercive measures, citizens were effectively compelled to take it.
According to Ojha, if these facts are established through evidence, the issue transcends mere negligence or error. It raises the question of a systematic and large-scale act—what he described as “mass murders through vaccines”—where public life was knowingly put at risk.
Beyond Negligence: Allegation of a Structured Wrong
Ojha emphasized that this is not a case of isolated lapses or oversight. If proven, it reflects a deliberate and coordinated course of conduct, where:
- Known risks were not disclosed,
- Assurances of complete safety were made, and
- Mass compliance was secured through pressure mechanisms.
Such conduct, if established, would attract the gravest form of criminal liability, as it involves endangering public life on a massive scale.
The Court then put a further question — why did the complainant’s son, the deceased Hitesh Kadwe, not simply refuse to be vaccinated? Adv. Ojha’s response was twofold? First, vaccination had been made effectively mandatory through vaccine mandates, leaving citizens with no real choice? Second, and critically, the death-causing side effects were never disclosed to the public — a disclosure that was obligatory in law under the doctrine of informed consent? He further submitted that the said vaccine mandates were subsequently declared illegal and unconstitutional by this very Court and by the Supreme Court of India in the cases of Jacob Puliyel, Feroze Mithiborwalla, and Yohan Tengra’s PIL.[ Feroze Mithiborwala v. State of Maharashtra, 2022 SCC OnLine Bom 356 ; Feroze Mithiborwala v. State of Maharashtra, 2022 SCC OnLine Bom 457; Jacob Puliyel v. Union of India, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 533 ]
Adv. Ojha also placed before the Court research establishing that the vaccines were 98 times more dangerous and deadly than COVID-19 itself, and that it was therefore not only medically unsound but reckless to promote and mandate such vaccines upon an unsuspecting population? He submitted that the vaccine mandates served no public health purpose and were designed solely to benefit the vaccine and pharma lobby. The research placed on record further demonstrated that countries and regions with higher rates of vaccination recorded more deaths and more successive waves of COVID-19, whereas regions with lower or no vaccination recorded significantly fewer deaths.
The Court, upon being satisfied with the proofs and submissions so advanced, granted liberty to file the vaccine murder complaint before the Magistrate? The complainant has relied upon peer-reviewed research and has named as her witnesses world-renowned epidemiologist Dr. Amitav Banerjee, IIT Professor Bhaskar Raman, and researchers Ambar Koiri, Yohan Tengra, and others.
Key Force Behind the Movement: Adv. Deepali Ojha and the Global Legal Push
A pivotal force behind bringing Adv. Nilesh Ojha into this movement alongwith Awaken India Movement and elevating it to an international platform has been Adv. Deepali Ojha. She played a foundational role in transforming what began as a domestic legal concern into a global legal and public health accountability movement.
Adv. Deepali Ojha was among the first to initiate a direct legal challenge at the international level by issuing a legal notice to Dr. Soumya Swaminathan of the World Health Organization (WHO). Through this, she raised serious legal questions regarding the alleged nexus between vaccine manufacturers, pharmaceutical interests, and regulatory authorities. This bold step marked the beginning of a structured legal confrontation against what has been described as a powerful global ecosystem.
Her efforts received international recognition, and she was featured in an interview published by Children’s Health Defense, an organization associated with Robert F. Kennedy Jr., where her legal intervention and findings were highlighted on a global stage.
International and National Support
This movement — dedicated to protecting humanity from unlawful vaccine mandates, pursuing accountability for those responsible, and opposing organised campaigns of misinformation and disinformation — has been a joint effort of many prominent international and Indian experts, activists, and public figures, including:
Dr. Tess Lawrie (Germany/Global Health Advocate), Dr. Pierre Kory (USA), Dr. Peter Mcllough, USA, World’s richest person Elon Musk, Aseem Malhotra (UK; associated with public health reform initiatives) , Dr. Sanjeev Rai (AIIMS) , Dr. Amitav Banerjee, Prof Bhaskar Raman, Dr. Arvind Kushwaha(AIIMS), Dr. Abhay Chheda, Dr. veena Raghava, Dr. Gayatri Panditrao, Baba Ramdev, Dr. Biswaroop Roy Chowdhury, Dr. Devendra Balhara, Shri Prakash Pohare, Owner and Editor-in-Chief of Dainik Deshonnati and Rashtraprakash , Ashutosh Pathak, Owner and Editor-in-Chief of Q Vive; Madan Dubey (Rajiv Dixit foundation), Virendra Singh, Nisha Koiri, Awaken India Movement, Dr. Maya Walecha, Adv. Sahil Goel, Dr. Manish Acharya , HIIMS, Robert Cibis of Oval media, Vivian – Germeny.
These individuals, along with numerous public health advocates and civil society voices, have contributed to amplifying concerns relating to transparency, safety, and accountability.
Legal Battle: Contribution of Senior Advocates and Bar Members
The legal dimension of this movement has been equally significant, with several distinguished members of the Bar contributing their expertise and advocacy.
Notably:
- Prashant Bhushan (Senior Advocate)
- Colin Gonsalves (Senior Advocate)
have played an important role in shaping the legal discourse and supporting constitutional arguments.
Additionally, several advocates associated with the Indian Bar Association have actively contributed to this legal effort, including:
– Adv. Ishwarlal Agarwal , Adv. Onkar Kakde, Adv. Vijay Kurle , Adv. Tanveer Nizam, Adv. Partho Sarkar, Adv. Nicky Pokar, Adv. Abhishek Mishra, Adv. Pratik Sarkar, Adv. Ghanshyam Upadhyay, Adv. Vivek Ramteke, Sh. Ravindra Bhuyar , RTO, Shri Ayush Tiwari, Shri. Rashid Khan Pathan, , Sh. Mursalin Sheikh. Advocates Devkrishna Bhamri, Shivam Gupta, Anushka Sonawne, Deepika Jaiswal, Poonam Rajbhar, Pratik Jain, Mangesh Dongre, Rajesh Ojha, Gopal Karhale, and Praveen Chawre. Advocate Snehal Surve, Advocate Siddhi Dhamnaskar, Advocate Shivam Mehra, Advocate Pooja Shah, Advocate Chaitanya Raote, Shri Parambheet Singh.
Their collective efforts reflect a coordinated legal movement aimed at raising issues of public importance through constitutional and statutory mechanisms.
This movement is not the effort of a single individual, but a multi-layered legal and public initiative—driven by advocates, supported by international voices, and sustained by a network of professionals committed to raising questions of accountability and transparency.
At its core, it represents an evolving legal struggle that has moved from national courts to global discourse, highlighting the growing intersection between law, public health, and fundamental rights.
