(LAwsuit against) Gates, Indian Government Targeted in Lawsuit Alleging AstraZeneca Vaccine Killed 23-Year-Old A lawsuit against Bill Gates, the Indian government and others, citing extensive case law, is attracting renewed scrutiny of Gates and his long-term, controversial involvement in India’s vaccine program. "The complaint alleges Maharashtra’s restrictions “are against the Central Government’s policy that, there cannot be any discrimination between vaccinated and unvaccinated people.” Other defendants in the case include the commissioner and director-general of the Maharashtra State Police, the Indian Central Bureau of Investigation and the principal secretary of the Indian Ministry of Health and Family Welfare. The complaint also brings charges against Bill Gates and Adar Poonawalla, CEO of the Serum Institute of India, the world’s largest vaccine manufacturer by number of doses produced and sold. The Serum Institute produces the Covishield vaccine, as well as over half of the world’s vaccines that are administered to babies. "

From this LOng Story here. https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/bill-gates-indian-government-lawsuit-astrazeneca-vaccine-killed-shri-hitesh-kadve/?utm_source=salsa&eType=EmailBlastContent&eId=78691755-4889-4368-beac-7f6dcda2531e ....."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 referenced English common law, specifically, the case of Airedale NHS Trust v. Bland (1993), a decision which held that if an unwilling adult is compelled to receive a flu vaccination through force, this action would amount to a crime and to a civil wrong. Remarking on this, the Indian court found: “[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.” The court in Meghalaya also referred to Article 19 of the Indian Constitution regarding the “freedom to practice any profession or carry on any occupation, trade or business,” and that vaccine-related restrictions were “palpably excessive.” The court added: “In this case, there is a clear lack of legitimacy in prohibiting freedom of carrying on any occupation, trade or business amongst a certain category or class of citizens who are otherwise entitled to do so, making the notification/order ill-conceived, arbitrary and/or a colourable exercise of power.” From an administrative point of view, the court in Meghalaya also found not only had the central Indian government not mandated vaccinations, instead holding that vaccination must remain voluntary, but there was no regulation or directive that allowed state governments to impose vaccination requirements within their own territory. Yadav case draws upon extensive Indian legal precedent, scientific studies "