The debate over mandatory vaccination had been continuing globally even during the lethal second wave of the pandemic. Developed countries, including the USA, were witnessing heavy backlashes and protests from anti-vaxxers. It continues to haunt the world even today, and the debate has spilled down to India. While hearing a petition filed by Jacob Puliyel — a former member of the National Technical Advisory Group on Immunisation (NTAGI) — the Supreme Court of India suggested all authorities, including private organisations and educational institutions, to review their vaccine mandates. The core argument behind the Supreme Court's judgement hinged around three factors — bodily integrity guaranteed under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution; personal autonomy of individuals including their right to refuse to undergo any medical treatment in the sphere of individual health; and personal beliefs or preferences. While quoting the last factor, the Supreme Court put a caveat that individual's personal beliefs or preferences regarding vaccination has to be balanced with "communitarian health at large, protection of which is undoubtedly a legitimate state aim of paramount significance in this collective battle against the pandemic". In view of this, the apex court observed, the government can "regulate such public health concerns by imposing certain limitations on individual rights that are reasonable and proportionate to the object sought to be achieved". The honourable court very rightly called for 'reasonable restrictions' — a term that is so often coined when individual rights come in conflict with communitarian concerns. It must be noted, however, that the term itself is intrinsically laden with ambiguities and complexities — leaving out a vast grey area. But the grey area appears inevitable because the governments have "neither furnished any material before the Court to justify the discriminatory treatment of unvaccinated people" nor the success and widespread acceptance of vaccines can be refuted altogether. The basic argument then boils down to answers to two questions — are vaccines critically important to save lives and prevent infections? And, can people be denied access to certain facilities in case they prefer not to be vaccinated? The first question has to be answered very objectively, with data and evidence. The apex court observed that the Central government's vaccination policy "is not unreasonable or arbitrary" but the question needs to be answered in more certain terms, not by the Supreme Court but by the government, based on research and analysis. If indeed vaccines are found to be unavoidable, the message has to be conveyed to all citizens — requiring again, sound scientific evidence. The second question pertains to Constitutional ethos and the apex court has dealt with it in the best manner possible by balancing between individual right to refuse vaccines and the concern of communitarian health. The court's order may be slightly clumsy in implementation but there hardly is any other way forward. By tilting towards any of the two arguments in the present circumstances, the Court could have erred in its decision. A very important aspect that must be highlighted here is that the court's order of revision of the vaccine mandate has come in the current context where cases are not very high. The court clarified that its judgement is "limited to the present situation alone and is not to be construed as interfering with the lawful exercise of power by the executive to take suitable measures for prevention of infection and transmission of the virus". The Supreme Court, in its best capacity, has passed the judgment based on limited evidence that was offered to it from both sides. It is now the turn of the executive to organise clear-cut data on the impact of vaccines on individual safety. Depending upon the evidence, the court will be better positioned to maintain a fine balance between individual rights and communitarian health. For the sake of people's safety, the answer to the vaccination mandate conundrum cannot be seen in black and white. Between the clear denial of mandate and physical coercion to get people vaccinated, a spectrum has to be designed, different parts of which can be visited at different times to remain in sync with the evolving virus. Solution appears to lie somewhere in the grey zone, which is clumsy but safe.