Read Time: 08 minutes

Supreme Court Today in Plea Seeking Ex Gratia Compensation For Families affected with COVID 19 pandemic, said that word occurring under Section 12 NDMA, be read as “shall” and not “may” as that would defeat the entire objective of the Act.

“The word used in section 12 of NDMA Act shall be used as shall and is a mandatory one”, Court said.

Six weeks time has been granted to the NDMA to determine the amount which can be paid to the families of each victim.

“We dispose of the petition with following directions:

1. Guidelines already recommended for min standard of relief to be given. The amount to be given would be decided by taken into account various factors.

2. The same to be formulated within 6 weeks from today

3. Guidelines will also be prepared with regards to the issuance of death certificate.

4. UOI shall take steps by taking into consideration the recommendations made by the finance commission in its 16th report with regards to insurance scheme”, the bench further added.

The Division bench of Justice Ashok Bhushan and Justice MR Shah, while reserving judgment in the matter, had asked the Centre to simplify guidelines on issuance of death certificates;

“For example if in a family both parents die due to Covid and you have rolled out a scheme for orphans but they have a wrong certificate, where reason is not Covid, how do you ensure that the benefits reach them? You will have to simplify the guidelines. We will have to consider the plight of most common person.”

On the contention of the petitioners that the earlier notification dated April 2015 must be extended for the present situation as well, Court said,

“Number of affected persons vary. If the gravity is different you cannot insist that the same parameters which were made applicable in the case of a smaller pandemic or calamity be applicable to a bigger pandemic as well”

Submissions were made by Senior Counsel SB Upadhyay, Advocate Gaurav Bansal for the Petitioners. Advocate Sumeer Sodhi for the Interveners, and, SGI Mr. Mehta appeared for the Union.

It was the contention of the petitioners that financial affordability or constraints cannot fall in the way of a statute/provision, made for alleviating the poor.

Objections were raised against the argument of the Centre that the word “Shall” occurring under Section 12, NDMA be read as “May”.

Referring Sections 2(m), 2(i), 19, 46, 48, NDMA, 2005 and Articles 280 and 281 of the Constitution, Learned Solicitor General submitted that the priorities of the Government are different than just one time relief sought by the petitioners. It was specified that Mitigation, Preparedness and Response are the major areas of focus and the allocation of funds have been made accordingly. Therefore if the prayer of the petitioners were allowed, the entire scheme of recommendations by the Finance Commission, upon which various guidelines have been made, will have to be rebuilt.

Section 12 Guidelines for minimum standards of relief: The National Authority shall recommend guidelines for the minimum standards of relief to be provided to persons affected by disaster, which shall include:

1. The minimum requirements to be provided in the relief camps in relation to shelter, food, drinking water, medical cover and sanitation;
2. The special provisions to be made for widows and orphans;
3. Ex gratia assistance on account of loss of life as also assistance on account of damage to houses and for restoration of means of livelihood;
4. Such other relief as may be necessary.

FULL JUDGMENT TO FOLLOW

Also Read: “Plight of common person prime”: Supreme Court reserves judgment in plea seeking ex gratia compensation to covid affected families

Also Read: Supreme Court directs Centre to submit guidelines on issuance of death certificates for those who succumbed to Covid19

Case Title: Gaurav Kumar Bansal v. UOI connected Reepak Kansal v. UOI