Reepak Kansal  vs Union Of India

Advertisements

INTRODUCTION

The submission argues that providing ex gratia assistance for loss of life is not only a statutory obligation under Section 12 of the Disaster Management Act (DMA) 2005 but also a constitutional duty, as it pertains to the right to life under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. The repeated use of the word “shall” in Section 12 emphasizes the mandatory nature of this obligation for the Central and State Governments to recommend guidelines for such assistance, which serves as essential support for affected individuals. Consequently, an appropriate writ of mandamus is sought against the Union of India and others to ensure social security and rehabilitation for COVID-19 victims, with additional support from intervenors who have lost family members to the pandemic.

FACTS OF THE CASE

1. The case revolves around the argument that providing ex gratia assistance for loss of life due to COVID-19 is both a statutory obligation under Section 12 of the Disaster Management Act (DMA) 2005 and a constitutional duty under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, which guarantees the right to life.
2. The word “shall” is emphasized twice in Section 12 of the DMA 2005, indicating a mandatory requirement for the Central and State Governments to recommend guidelines for providing ex gratia assistance, which is considered essential for the sustenance of affected individuals.
3. The petitioners seek an appropriate writ of mandamus from the court to compel the Union of India and other respondents to provide social security and rehabilitation to victims of COVID-19.
4. wo applications were filed by intervenors—family members who lost loved ones to COVID-19—supporting the prayers in the respective writ petitions for ex gratia assistance.

ISSUES RAISED

1. The core issue is whether the government is constitutionally and statutorily obligated to provide ex gratia assistance and social security to families who have lost members due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
2. Whether the statutory language in Section 12, particularly the use of the word “shall,” imposes a mandatory obligation on the Central and State Governments to recommend and provide ex gratia assistance to families of COVID-19 victims.
3. Whether the failure to provide ex gratia assistance to the families of COVID-19 victims violates their right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty.

CONTENTIONS OF APPEALING

1. The appellants contended that Section 12 of the Disaster Management Act (DMA) 2005 imposes a mandatory obligation on the Central and State Governments to recommend guidelines for providing ex gratia assistance to the families of COVID-19 victims. They argued that the use of the word “shall” in the provision indicates a statutory duty that must be fulfilled.
2. The appellants argued that the failure to provide ex gratia assistance to the families of COVID-19 victims amounts to a violation of their fundamental right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. They claimed that the right to life includes the right to a dignified existence, which necessitates the provision of social security and rehabilitation to those affected by the pandemic
3. The appellants emphasized the urgent need for financial assistance to the families of COVID-19 victims, who have been left in a vulnerable position due to the loss of their primary breadwinners. They argued that the government has a responsibility to provide immediate and adequate relief to alleviate the suffering of these families
4. The appellants contended that the court should intervene and issue a writ of mandamus to compel the Union of India and the State Governments to implement the necessary measures for providing ex gratia assistance and social security to the affected families. They argued that judicial intervention is necessary to ensure that the government fulfills its statutory and constitutional obligations

CONTENTIONS OF REPONDENT

1. The respondents may argue that while Section 12 of the Disaster Management Act (DMA) 2005 provides for the formulation of guidelines for ex gratia assistance, the actual provision of such assistance is discretionary and not mandatory. They could contend that the term “shall” in the provision refers to the formulation of guidelines, but it does not compel the government to provide financial assistance in every case
2. Shri Nagamuthu, senior counsel for defendant No.11, supported the judgments of the lower courts. He stated that starting in 1989, shares of the mill were sold, and defendant No.1 purchased them. The compromise decree dated 06.08.1984 was implemented, and by 1994, all shares of the mill had been transferred, with defendant No.11 and other defendants being transferees of these shares.
3. The respondents might assert that the government has already implemented various relief measures to support families affected by COVID-19, including financial aid, healthcare support, and other forms of social assistance. They could argue that these measures are sufficient to fulfill the government’s obligations under the DMA 2005 and Article 21 of the Constitution.
4. The respondents may contend that the provision of ex gratia assistance to all families affected by COVID-19 would place an enormous financial burden on the government, especially given the large number of victims. They might argue that the government needs to balance its financial resources and prioritize them for other essential services and pandemic-related expenditures.

JUDGEMENT 

1. The court recognized that Section 12 of the Disaster Management Act (DMA) 2005, read in conjunction with Article 21 of the Constitution, imposes both a statutory and constitutional obligation on the Central and State Governments to provide ex gratia assistance to the families of those who lost their lives due to COVID-19. The court held that the word “shall” in Section 12 indicates a mandatory duty on the part of the government to recommend guidelines for providing such assistance
2. The court emphasized that the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution includes the right to dignity, which extends to the next of kin of deceased persons. The court held that the failure to provide ex gratia assistance would violate the right to life as it would deprive the affected families of essential sustenance.
3. The court directed the Central and State Governments to formulate and implement appropriate guidelines within a stipulated time frame to ensure that ex gratia assistance is provided to the families of those who died due to COVID-19. The court stressed that these guidelines should be fair, transparent, and based on objective criteria to ensure that all eligible families receive the assistance they are entitled to.
4. While acknowledging the financial constraints faced by the government, the court held that the obligation to provide ex gratia assistance cannot be negated on these grounds. The court noted that the government must prioritize its resources to address the needs of the most vulnerable sections of society, particularly in the context of a pandemic.
5. The court allowed the writ petitions and directed the respondents, including the Union of India and State Governments, to immediately initiate the process of providing ex gratia assistance to the families of COVID-19 victims. The court further directed that the process should be completed within a specified time frame and that compliance reports be submitted to the court for monitoring purposes.

ANALYSIS

1. The court’s decision underscores the judiciary’s role in upholding fundamental rights, especially the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution. By linking the right to ex gratia assistance with the right to life and dignity, the court reaffirmed that the state has a duty to protect and provide for its citizens, particularly in times of crisis. This sets a precedent for the interpretation of Article 21, expanding its scope to include the right to sustenance and basic security for the families of those who have died due to disasters or pandemics.
2. The court’s interpretation of Section 12 of the DMA 2005 is significant as it clarified that the word “shall” imposes a mandatory obligation on the government to provide ex gratia assistance. This interpretation strengthens the enforceability of statutory provisions that are designed to offer protection and aid during emergencies. The judgment effectively prevents the government from shirking its responsibilities on technical or financial grounds, ensuring that the law is applied in a manner that prioritizes human rights.
3. The judgment demonstrates the judiciary’s willingness to step in when the executive fails to fulfill its duties. The court’s rejection of the separation of powers argument put forth by the respondents is a critical aspect of this decision. It illustrates that the judiciary can and will intervene to correct governmental inaction or failure, particularly when such failures result in the violation of fundamental rights. This serves as a reminder that the judiciary has a crucial role in maintaining checks and balances within the government.
4. The court’s acknowledgment of the government’s financial constraints, while still mandating the provision of ex gratia assistance, reflects a balanced approach. The judgment recognizes the need for fiscal responsibility but insists that the government must prioritize the needs of the most vulnerable populations. This aspect of the judgment encourages a more humane and compassionate approach to governance, where the well-being of citizens takes precedence over financial considerations.

CONCLUSION

The conclusion of the case highlights the judiciary’s firm stance on upholding the fundamental rights of citizens, particularly the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution. The court ruled that the government has a mandatory obligation under the Disaster Management Act, 2005, to provide ex gratia assistance to the families of those who lost their lives due to COVID-19. This decision reinforces the principle that the state must prioritize the welfare of its citizens, especially in times of crisis, ensuring that legal and constitutional obligations are met with fairness, transparency, and compassion

REFERENCES

1. SCC
2. https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/reepak-kansal-vs-union-of-india-ll-2021-sc-277-395793.pdf
3. https://www.covid19litigation.org/case-index/india-supreme-court-india-reepak-kansal-and-another-v-union-india-and-others-2021-06-30
4. https://itatonline.org/digest/verdicts/reepak-kansal-vs-union-of-india-and-others-supreme-court/

This Article is written by ASTHA SINGH student of USLLS (GGSIPU) ; Intern at Legal Vidhiya.

Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or the materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is of a personal nature.

Admin