Summary
In public-interest petitions seeking Rs.4 lakh for each COVID-19 death and accurate death documentation, the Supreme Court held that section 12 of the Disaster Management Act imposed a mandatory duty on NDMA to recommend ex gratia assistance guidelines. It required that exercise within six weeks but left the reasonable amount to the authority, considering competing relief needs and resources. It also directed simplified COVID-death certification guidelines and steps on the Finance Commission's insurance recommendations. The judgment itself fixed no compensation amount.
Issues
- Whether NDMA's duty to recommend ex gratia assistance for COVID-19 deaths was mandatory.
- Whether the Court should prescribe Rs.4 lakh per death or another particular amount.
- What directions were necessary for accurate death certification and insurance-related recommendations.
Provisions considered
- Section 12, particularly clause (iii), Disaster Management Act, 2005The repeated use of 'shall', the statutory purpose and minimum-relief scheme made recommendations for ex gratia assistance obligatory; other relief programmes did not discharge the omitted duty. (¶¶ 8, 9.4, 10, 10.1, 10.2, 10.3, 10.4, 12, 16)
- Section 2(d), Disaster Management Act, 2005COVID-19 qualified as a disaster; its prolonged or unusual character did not exclude the application of section 12. (¶¶ 9.6, 10.4)
- Section 6, Disaster Management Act, 2005NDMA's responsibility for disaster policy and mitigation supported construing the minimum-relief recommendation duty as mandatory. (¶¶ 9.2, 10.1)
Held
- Courts exercise restraint over fiscal policy choices but may compel performance of a statutory duty. NDMA's failure to recommend COVID-death ex gratia guidelines justified mandamus despite measures already taken in other fields. (¶¶ 7.1, 7.2, 7.3, 10.4)
- Section 12 required ex gratia assistance guidelines for loss of life. COVID-19 was within the disaster definition, and the mandatory language could not be read as a discretion to omit that category of relief. (¶¶ 10.1, 10.2, 10.3, 10.4)
- Neither Rs.4 lakh nor another fixed sum was judicially prescribed. The reasonable amount remained for NDMA, taking account of available resources, prevention, preparedness, mitigation, recovery and other minimum-relief priorities; the guidelines were to be recommended within six weeks. (¶¶ 11, 11.1, 12, 12.1, 16)
- Uniform guidelines were appropriate, while States remained free to provide additional assistance from their own relief funds other than SDRF, subject to their policy and resources. (¶ 12.1)
- The appropriate authority had to simplify documentation of COVID-related deaths and provide a means to correct disputed causes of death, bearing in mind the discussion of deaths due to COVID complications. These were directions to frame guidelines, rather than a final universal temporal eligibility rule. (¶¶ 13, 16)
- The general request for unspecified welfare relief was too vague to support mandamus prescribing a package. The Union was to take appropriate steps on the Finance Commission's insurance recommendations in consultation with experts and stakeholders. (¶¶ 14, 15, 16)
Result
Writ petitions disposed of with directions for NDMA's ex gratia guidelines within six weeks, simplified COVID-death documentation and corrective remedies, and appropriate steps on Finance Commission recommendations. No specific compensation sum fixed.