Case Title: Reepak Kansal v. Union of India
The Supreme Court ruled that the National Disaster Management Authority has a statutory obligation to develop criteria for suggesting minimal ex-gratia aid for COVID pandemic victims.
The Court determined that Section 12 of the Disaster Management Act imposed a legislative requirement on the National Disaster Management Authority to recommend minimal relief to victims of a national disaster. According to the Court, such minimum remedies shall also include 'ex-gratia aid' under Section 12(iii).
The Court dismissed the Union Government's claim that Section 12 was not a required clause. Because Section 12 included the word 'shall,' the Court held that the clause was mandatory. The Union had claimed that the word 'shall' in Section 12 should be construed as 'may.'
The Court placed heavy reliance on these cases to settle the issues in the present case: DLF Universal Limited v. Director, Town and Country Planning Department, Haryana (para 13) and Shin-Etsu Chemical Co. Ltd. v. Aksh Optifibre Limited, (Para 85)
An important submission made in this regard stated, "Relying upon the decision of this Court in the case of Bhavnagar University v. Palitana Sugar Mill (P) Ltd, it is submitted that when the language used in the section/provision is plain and unambiguous, no words shall be added, altered or modified unless it is plainly necessary to do so to prevent a provision from being unintelligible, absurd, unreasonable, unworkable or totally irreconcilable with the rest of the statute. It is submitted that in the present case the language used in Section 12 of the DMA 2005 is plain and unambiguous and therefore the word “shall” shall be read as “shall” and the same should be construed as mandatorily to be provided."
The Court, however, stated that it cannot order the Union Government to pay a specific amount as compensation. The Court has ordered the National Authority to develop guidelines for granting ex-gratia aid to COVID victims within six weeks.
In their writ petitions to the Supreme Court, the petitioners requested that the Centre and States provide ex-gratia compensation of Rs. 4 lakh to the family members of individuals who died as a result of the COVID-19 disease and its complications. The petitioners also requested that the process for issuing death certificates to people who died as a result of COVID be simplified.
Furthermore, after reviewing the limits of judicial review, the Court determined that it could not order the government to pay a specific amount as compensation. The government has its own goals and must address a variety of demands and sectors, including public healthcare and the welfare of migrants and the underprivileged affected by the pandemic. The government must also deal with the economic effects of the pandemic.
The Court stated that ex-gratia support will place financial hardship on the government. As a result, it resorted to the wisdom of the National Authority.
"No country or state has unlimited resources. Dispensation of the same is based on a number of circumstances and facts. Therefore, we don't think it is proper to direct the Union to pay a particular amount. This is to be fixed by the government. Ultimately, the priorities are also to be fixed by the government", the Court observed.
The Court also issued several instructions in response to the writ petitions.