What’s the decision on ex gratia for COVID-19 victims’ kin, Supreme Court asks Centre

The Supreme Court on Monday requested the authorities whether or not it has taken a “decision” to not pay ex gratia to households who misplaced their family members to COVID-19.

“Is there any decision taken that there isn’t any must pay ex gratia? Is there a decision or is it a case of ‘no decision” Justice Ashok Bhushan asked Solicitor General Tushar Mehta.

“Where is the decision that there is no need for ex gratia?”, Justice M.R. Shah, the other judge on the Bench, also enquired. He even asked whether the government, by maintaining that COVID-19 was not a “one-time disaster”, was inferring that the Disaster Management Act would not apply to the pandemic.

The questions from the Bench came even as the Union government clarified that it had money, but the focus was on utilising funds for food, medical care, oxygen, vaccination and pumping up the economy rather than pay a one-time compensation of ₹4 lakh each to families of people who died of COVID-19.

‘Twisted on Twitter’

“It is not that we do not have money… It is that our focus is rather on expenditure of money for other things [like public health interventions, social protection and economic recovery for the affected communities, etc],” Mr. Mehta submitted. He mentioned the contents of the authorities’s June 19 affidavit, explaining its monetary priorities for COVID-19 administration, was “twisted” and misrepresented on Twitter.

Justice Shah mentioned the authorities needn’t defend itself in court docket in opposition to what was mentioned on Twitter. He, nevertheless, agreed that Mr. Mehta was proper to make clear. “To say that the Centre has no money has wide repercussions,” he noticed.

Senior advocate S.B. Upadhyay, for the petitioners, mentioned, “But if they do have the money, why should they not comply with their statutory obligation under Section 12 of the Disaster Management Act to provide ex gratia assistance to COVID-19 victims?”. The authorities had itself declared COVID-19 a nationwide catastrophe, he submitted.

The petitioners have highlighted a 2015 notification, which requires the authorities to pay an ex gratia of ₹ 4 lakh every to victims’ households below Section 12. The Centre can not cite monetary constraints to elude its statutory responsibility to pay compensation now, Mr. Upadhyay contended.

Justice Shah, highlighting the petitioners’ argument for framing uniform tips on catastrophe compensation, reasoned that disasters and pandemics different in impression. One reduction can not match all tragedies.

Varied impression of disasters

“Every disaster has a different impact. There may be a big or a small disaster. There may be a big or a small pandemic. There may be a flood where the victims are less. The gravity of a global pandemic is high. You cannot apply the same standards of a small disaster or a smaller pandemic to a global pandemic,” he addressed Mr.Upadhyay.

But Mr.Upadhyay continued that “financial constraints” or the excuse that cost of compensation would dry up the Central authorities’s and the States assets couldn’t be made a floor by the authorities to keep away from its obligation below a statute to pay ex gratia.

Advocate Gaurav Kumar Bansal, a petitioner, mentioned, “The amount can be less small or big, but some help needs to be given to families, some of whom have lost their sole breadwinners. Families of frontline warriors who lost their lives in the line of duty cannot be left in a lurch”.

Mr. Mehta mentioned Section 12 was solely “recommendatory” in nature. He argued that the Disaster Management Act has moved away from one-time money reliefs to bigger problems with wider impression equivalent to preparedness, threat administration, mitigation, rehabilitation and reconstruction. “Instead of giving one-time relief, we have gone for a multi-pronged approach. We have prioritised on preparedness. This is not a one-time disaster,” he submitted.

Finance Commission report

Mr. Mehta referred to the fifteenth Finance Commission report for 2021-2026 to argue that the funds for catastrophe administration and their allocations had been already mounted.

Justice Shah requested, “So, the Finance Commission fixes ₹15,000 crore on disaster management. Then COVID-19 happens. You need ₹25,000 crore on disaster management. Can you say that you will only spend ₹15,000 crore?”.

Mr. Mehta replied, “We will have to go back to Parliament. It will have to be ratified by Parliament”.

Justice Shah acknowledged, “Remember, a Finance Commission report cannot override a statutory provision [Section 12]. You just need to keep in mind the broad aspects of the Finance Commission report while framing further guidelines [for COVID-related funding]”.

The court docket has reserved the petitions for judgment. eom