Bill Gates And Adar Poonawala Targeted In Lawsuit For Death Of 23 Year Old From AstraZeneca Vaccine

A major lawsuit has been filed against Bill Gates, Adar Poonawala and the Indian government alongside several health officials for the death of a 23 year old young adult following the AstraZeneca COVID vaccination.

A petitioner from India is attempting to prosecute Bill Gates, Indian vaccine czar Adar Poonawalla, and Indian government and public health officials over the demise of a 23-year-old individual who perished after acquiring AstraZeneca’s Covishield vaccination. This could be the first judicial case of its sort in the world.

On behalf of her departed son, Shri Hitesh Kadve, Kiran Yadav launched a criminal writ case for murder, Smt. Kiran Yadav v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. (hereafter referred to as Yadav v. Maharashtra), before the Bombay High Court of Judicature late last year.

On September 29, 2021, her son was immunised. According to the lawsuit, he succumbed the same day as a result of the vaccine’s negative effects.

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.”

Yadav’s kid was also “unwillingly” coerced to get inoculated, according to the lawsuit, predicated on the “false narrative” that the vaccination was completely harmless, and because the state of Maharashtra prevented non-vaccinated people from boarding trains or visiting retail places like shopping centers.

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

The Maharashtra State Police commissioner and director-general, the Indian Central Bureau of Investigation, and the senior secretary of the Indian Ministry of Health and Family Welfare are among the other defendants in the case.

Bill Gates and Adar Poonawalla, CEO of the Serum Institute of India, the world’s biggest vaccine producer by number of doses manufactured and distributed, are also named in the case.

The Serum Institute manufactures the Covishield vaccines, as well as more than half of the world’s infant immunizations.

Yadav is seeking restitution of 1,000 crores (10 billion rupees, or $134 million USD), with 100 crores ($13.4 million USD) in intermediate compensation.

She’s requesting Gates, Poonawalla, and others for lie detector and narcoanalysis tests.

The Government of India recognized in the case that the Covishield vaccination could have serious and possibly catastrophic side effects, but the vaccination was being given out despite this awareness.

The lawsuit in Yadav v. Maharashtra was submitted by Mumbai attorneys Shivam Mehra and Siddhi Dhamnaskar, and it seems that the Indian Bar Association, an unofficial organization of Indian lawyers (the Bar Council of India is the country’s official bar association), first published it in English.

The Supreme Court of India has taken a pro-vaccine attitude in general. Nonetheless, Yadav’s 265-page case is notable for the vast legal precedent it draws from Indian and common law, questioning the legitimacy of required vaccination and other coerced medical activities.

The case is especially notable for the precise claims levelled against individuals such as Poonawala and Gates, who have been the subject of much dispute in India.

Extensive legal precedent casts doubt on legality of India’s mandatory vaccination policy

The case of Registrar General, High Court of Meghalaya v. State of Meghalaya is one of the primary court judgements cited in the Yadav v. Maharashtra complaint (herein referred to as Meghalaya). The judgement, which was delivered on June 23, 2021, stated that vaccination by force or deceit, or by imposing constraints on non-vaccinated people, is an infringement of basic human liberties and a civil and criminal violation.

This decision rejected a Meghalaya state directive requiring vendors, taxi drivers, merchants, and others to get immunized prior to actually continuing or restarting their operations.

While vaccination was “the need of the hour,” the court observed that a welfare state’s immunization program “can never affect a major fundamental right, i.e. the right to life, personal liberty and livelihood.”

The court in Meghalaya discussed the right to health under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, reasoning that when healthcare is delivered by coercion, it infringes on the basic right to personal privacy.

The court also cited Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India (2018), which stated that when people are robbed of their freedom to personal choice, physical autonomy and integrity, and the overarching right to privacy, their fundamental right to health is breached.

The court in Meghalaya added:

“[V]accination 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.

“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 cited English common law, citing the case of Airedale NHS Trust v. Bland (1993), which concluded that forcing an unwilling adult to undergo a flu vaccination is both a felony and a civil violation.

The Indian court remarked on this, finding:

“[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.”

From such an administrative standpoint, the court in Meghalaya held that not only had the central Indian government not forced vaccines, but that there was also no legislation or directive that authorized state governments to enforce immunization mandates inside their own area.

Yadav case draws upon extensive Indian legal precedent, scientific studies

The criminal charge in Yadav v. Maharashtra cited a number of other Indian court judgements, notably recent COVID vaccine-related cases like Dinthar Incident v. State of Mizoram and Others (2021) and Madan Mili v. Union of India (2021).

These verdicts determined that vaccinated adults can become afflicted with COVID and transmit infection just like unvaccinated people, and that there can be no distinction between the two groups. Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Indian Constitution prohibit such discrimination.

The following cases and English common law are mentioned in Yadav v. Maharashtra:

Common Cause v. Union of India (2018) held that:

 “[A]ll 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 … [a] competent person who has come of age has the right to refuse specific treatment or all treatment or opt for an alternative treatment …

“The best interest of the patient shall override the State interest.”

Osbert Khaling v. State of Manipur (2021) held that:

“Restraining people who are yet to get vaccinated from opening institutions, organizations, factories, shops, etc., or denying them their livelihood by linking their employment … to their getting vaccinated would be illegal on the part of the State, if not unconstitutional.

“Such a measure would also trample upon the freedom of the individual to get vaccinated or choose not to do so.”

Montgomery v. Lanarkshire Health Board (2015), English common law, held that:

“An adult person of sound mind is entitled to decide which, if any, of the available forms of treatment to undergo, and her consent must be obtained before treatment interfering with her bodily integrity is undertaken.”

In Yadav v. Maharashtra, the Indian Health Ministry’s undersecretary, Satyendra Singh, reaffirms that vaccination is still consensual, that the Indian government “has not formulated or suggested any policies for discrimination between citizens of India on the basis of their vaccination status,” and that no individual can be compelled to be inoculated.

The case also cites Indian law, notably the Disaster Management Act of 2005, which states that state governments cannot make restrictions that contradict national government directives. According to the Yadav v. Maharashtra lawsuit, such restrictions cannot be bypassed indirectly, citing another Indian court case, Noida Entrepreneurs Association v. Noida (2011).

Several clauses from UNESCO’s Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights (2005) are also mentioned in the complaint:

• Article 3 on human dignity and human rights, which holds that “[t]he interests and welfare of the individual should have priority over the sole interest of science or society.”
• Article 6, which holds that “any preventive, diagnostic and therapeutic medical intervention is only to be carried out with… prior, free and informed consent.”
• Article 8 on respect for human vulnerability and personal integrity.
• Article 11, which states that “[n]o individual or group should be discriminated against or stigmatized on any grounds, in violation of human dignity, human rights and fundamental freedoms.”

The complaint goes on to mention specific people, including India’s Drug Controller General Venugopal G. Somani and AIIMS’s Randeep Guleria, as participants in a “dishonesty and cheating campaign” and the “furtherance of [a] conspiracy” by creating the “false and misleading statement” that the COVID immunization were absolutely secure.

The lawsuit accuses Somani and Guleria of having a “one-line agenda to give wrongful profit to the vaccine companies,” and proceeds on to reference Indian case law holding that because “conspiracies are hatched on secrecy … no direct evidence is required to prove it. The offense can be proved from circumstantial evidences.”

The complaint also cites a combination of 81 research articles, which discuss, amongst many other things, the stronger resistance that someone with natural immunity have against COVID compared to those who are vaccinated, as well as the vaccines’ lesser efficiency against variations like Delta.