The Delhi High Court on Wednesday declined to stop the Centre’s ongoing Human Papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination campaign for adolescent girls, but sought detailed responses from the government and key health authorities on concerns surrounding the programme.
The court’s decision allows the HPV immunisation drive to continue for now, while keeping questions about its justification, safety and implementation open for further consideration. The matter came before the court through a public interest litigation (PIL) challenging aspects of the government’s decision to include HPV vaccination under the national immunisation programme.
A bench of the Delhi High Court asked the Centre, the Central Drugs Standard Control Organisation (CDSCO) and the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) to file separate responses within four weeks. The authorities have been asked to explain the basis for introducing the vaccine and address the concerns raised by the petitioners.
The court had earlier described the issue as a “very serious matter” while hearing arguments concerning the HPV vaccination programme and reported adverse events. The latest order, however, does not put a stay on the vaccination campaign.
The Centre has maintained that the nationwide HPV vaccination programme is part of its larger effort to prevent cervical cancer, one of the leading cancers affecting women in India. The campaign was launched on February 28, 2026, with the government targeting around 1.2 crore eligible girls aged 14 years across the country.
According to the Union Health Ministry, more than 52 lakh girls had received the HPV vaccine by July 15. The vaccine is being provided free of cost through designated government health facilities, including Ayushman Arogya Mandirs, primary health centres, community health centres, district hospitals and government medical colleges.
The programme is focused on prevention because persistent infection with high-risk types of HPV can lead to cervical cancer. HPV is a common viral infection, and vaccination before exposure to the virus is considered an important preventive measure.
The court proceedings have nevertheless brought renewed attention to questions about vaccine safety, adverse events and regulatory oversight. Petitioners have raised concerns about the vaccine being administered under the government programme and have questioned aspects of the decision-making process behind its inclusion.
During an earlier hearing, the petitioners referred to concerns associated with an earlier HPV vaccination effort in India. They also raised questions about reported adverse events and the need for adequate safeguards before expanding a vaccination programme involving a large number of adolescents.
The latest hearing does not mean that the court has concluded that the HPV vaccine is unsafe. Instead, the court has sought responses from the relevant authorities before deciding whether the concerns raised in the PIL require further judicial intervention. For now, the vaccination drive can proceed.
The Centre has also provided information on the progress of the campaign. The government said extensive training had been completed for medical and paramedical personnel across all 36 States and Union Territories. It has described HPV vaccination as one part of a broader cervical cancer prevention strategy that also includes screening, early diagnosis and treatment.
The Delhi government has separately been working with schools and health facilities to identify eligible girls and facilitate vaccination. Official directions issued to schools have called for parental awareness, written consent and coordination with health facilities for vaccination sessions. The eligibility criteria specified for the Delhi campaign cover girls aged 14 to under 15 years, with a 90-day grace period on the vaccination date.
The court’s intervention therefore comes at a time when the government is attempting to scale up HPV vaccination across India while also addressing concerns and misinformation surrounding the programme.
This development for parents, means that the government vaccination programme remains operational, but the legal challenge is still active. The Centre, CDSCO and ICMR will now have to provide detailed explanations to the court before the next stage of proceedings.
The case also highlights the importance of clear communication around public health programmes. With HPV vaccination involving adolescents, parents and schools, questions about vaccine safety, eligibility, consent and possible side effects can strongly influence public confidence. Health officials will therefore face the dual challenge of expanding coverage while ensuring that families receive reliable and transparent information.
The Delhi High Court is expected to consider the government and regulatory bodies’ responses after the four-week period. Until then, there is no judicial order stopping the nationwide HPV vaccination campaign.
