Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Court | Supreme Court of India |
| Case Number | SLP(C) No.-016860 – 2021 |
| Diary Number | 15615/2021 |
| Judge Name | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA |
| Bench | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA; HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ATUL S. CHANDURKAR |
| Precedent Value | Binding |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms and clarifies scope of “requisitioning” under the Epidemic Diseases Act and PMGKY scheme notifications |
| Type of Law | Statutory interpretation; administrative/executive action |
| Questions of Law | Whether a directive to keep a private dispensary open under Regulation 10 of the Maharashtra COVID-19 Regulations amounts to “requisitioning of services” for eligibility under the Pradhan Mantri Garib Kalyan Yojana insurance scheme |
| Ratio Decidendi | The Court held that the Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897 and Maharashtra COVID-19 Regulations, 2020, read alongside the PMGKY insurance notifications and related communications, evidence a broad requisition of doctors’ services, including private practitioners directed to keep their facilities open. It rejected a narrow requirement of an individualized appointment order, finding that show‐cause notices under Regulation 10 suffice as requisition. The judgment imposes on the claimant the onus to prove that the deceased died performing COVID-19-related duties and clarifies that individual claims must be decided on credible evidence of service and COVID-related death. |
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | The Court applied a purposive and contextual interpretation of Sections 2–4 of the Epidemic Diseases Act and Regulations 10–13, the 31.03.2020 NMMC notice, the 28.03.2020 PMGKY order, explanatory letters and FAQs—reading these instruments conjunctively to infer state‐wide requisition and insurance cover for all drafted health workers. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | Late Dr. B.S. Surgade ran a private dispensary and received an NMMC notice dated 31.03.2020 under Regulation 10 directing him to keep it open or face FIR under IPC 188; a DMER notification dated 09.05.2020 also asked registered AYUSH practitioners to render COVID-19 services; Dr. Surgade tested positive on 08.06.2020, died on 10.06.2020, and his wife’s Rs. 50 lakh PMGKY claim was rejected for lack of proof of requisition; the Bombay High Court dismissed her writ petition on the same ground. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All courts and government bodies adjudicating PMGKY insurance claims under the Epidemic Diseases Act and related regulations |
| Persuasive For | State governments, municipal corporations and health authorities interpreting “requisitioning” in emergency regulations |
| Overrules | Bombay High Court’s narrow interpretation in Writ Petition No. 93840/2020 requiring an individualized requisition order |
| Distinguishes | Decisions treating administrative directions to keep clinics open as non‐requisition notices |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- The Supreme Court confirms that show-cause or compliance notices issued under Regulation 10 of the Maharashtra COVID-19 Regulations amount to “requisitioning of services.”
- Private practitioners directed to keep their facilities open for containment and treatment duties are eligible under the PMGKY insurance scheme.
- A narrow requirement of individualized appointment or drafting orders is rejected—contextual, purposive reading of all notifications suffices.
- Claimants bear the onus to demonstrate that the deceased died performing COVID-19-related duties; factual evidence must be produced.
- AYUSH training certificates or routine practice status do not alone establish entitlement; actual service under requisition must be shown.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- Contextual necessity
The COVID-19 pandemic triggered invocation of the Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897 and urgent regulations to contain an unprecedented public health crisis. - Regulatory power to requisition
Regulation 10 empowered municipal authorities to “requisition the services of any other person,” backed by penalties under IPC 188 for non-compliance (Regulation 11). - PMGKY insurance scheme mechanics
The 28.03.2020 PMGKY order, explanatory letter (03.04.2020) and FAQs extended 90-day, Rs 50 lakh accident cover to all healthcare workers—public and private—“requisitioned by States” for COVID-19 duties. - Conjoint interpretation
A purposive reading of the Act, Regulations, NMMC notice (31.03.2020), PMGKY notifications and FAQs demonstrates a broad, state‐wide requisition rather than isolated individual orders. - Onus and evidence
While “requisitioning” is established by the regulatory framework, individual claims require credible proof that the insured died performing COVID-19-related duties.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner (Appellant Wife)
- The NMMC notice of 31.03.2020 under Regulation 10 amounted to requisition of services.
- Dr. Surgade complied by keeping his dispensary open and undertaking containment measures.
- Denial of PMGKY benefits on a narrow interpretation defeats the scheme’s purpose.
Respondents (State Authorities & Insurance Company)
- PMGKY requires proof of specific drafting or requisition “for COVID-19 related responsibilities.”
- The 31.03.2020 notice only ensured clinics remained open generally, not for COVID-19 duties.
- No individual communication directed Dr. Surgade to treat COVID-19 patients; his dispensary was never designated a COVID-19 centre.
Factual Background
Late Dr. B.S. Surgade ran a private dispensary in Navi Mumbai. On 31.03.2020 the Municipal Commissioner issued a show-cause notice under Regulation 10 of the Maharashtra COVID-19 Regulations directing him to keep his facility open or face prosecution. A separate DMER notification on 09.05.2020 summoned AYUSH practitioners for COVID-19 duty. Dr. Surgade tested positive on 08.06.2020 and died two days later. His widow’s claim for Rs 50 lakh under the PM Garib Kalyan Yojana insurance scheme was rejected for lack of proof of requisition, and the Bombay High Court dismissed her writ petition.
Statutory Analysis
- Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897 (Sections 2–4): empowers state governments to take special measures, including requisition of services, to prevent epidemic spread.
- Maharashtra COVID-19 Regulations, 2020 (Regulations 10–13): authorize Municipal Commissioners to impose containment measures, invoke staff requisition, and penalize non-compliance under IPC 188.
- PMGKY Insurance Order (28.03.2020): launches 90-day Rs 50 lakh personal accident cover for health workers “requisitioned by States” for COVID-19 duties; premium funded by NDRF.
- Explanatory Letter (03.04.2020) & FAQs: clarify that coverage extends to private hospital staff, daily-wage/outsourced personnel, volunteers and retired staff if services were requisitioned by government authorities.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Affirms the broad, purposive interpretation of “requisitioning” under emergency health regulations.