Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(SC) 1318

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
M.R. Shah, Sanjiv Khanna, JJ.
Gaurav Kumar Bansal – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
Miscellaneous Application No. 1805 of 2021 in W.P.(C) No. 539 of 2021 (Arising Out of impugned final judgment and order dated 30-06-2021 in W.P.(C) No. No. 539 of 2021 passed by the Supreme Court of India)
Decided On : 19-01-2022

Advocates appeared:
Petitioner-in-person, Advocate, Mr. Pranjal Kishore, Advocate, Mr. Aditya Jain-1, Advocate, For the Appellant / Mr. Tushar Mehta, SG, Mr. K.M.Nataraj, ASG, Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, ASG, Mr. Rajat Nair, Advocate, Mr. Amit Sharma, Advocate, Mr. Sughosh Subramanyam, Advocate, Mr. Arvind Kr. Sharma, Advocate, Mr. G.S. Makker, Advocate, Mr. B. V. Balaram Das, Advocate, Ms. Manisha Lavkumar, Sr. Advocate, Ms. Deepanwita Priyanka, Advocate, Mr. R. Basant, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Mahfooz Ahsan Nazki, Advocate, Mr. Polanki Gowtham, Advocate, Mr. Shaik Mohamad Haneef, Advocate, Mr. T. Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy, Advocate, Mr. K.V. Girish Chowdary, Advocate, Ms. Rajeswari Mukherjee, Advocate, Ms. Diksha Rai, Advocate, Mr. Ankit Agarwal, Advocate, Ms. Ragini Pandey Advocate, Mr. Arun R. Pednekar, Advocate, Ms. Mukti Chowdhary, Advocate, Mr. Anil Grover, Sr. AAG, Dr. Monika Gusain, Advocate, Mr. Darpan KM., Advocate, Ms. Amrita Sharma, Advocate, Mr. Rajat Jonathan Shaw, Advocate, Mr. D.K. Devesh, Advocate, Mr. G.M. Kawoosa, Advocate, Ms. Taruna Ardhendumauli Prasad, Advocate, Mr. Saurabh Mishra AAG, Mr. Sunny Choudhary, Advocate, Mr. Nachiketa Joshi, Advocate, Mr. Sandeep Sharma, Advocate, Mr. Rahul Chitnis, Adv Mr. Sachin Patil, Advocate, Mr. Aaditya A. Pande, Advocate, Mr. Geo Joseph, Advocate, Ms. Shwetal Shepal, Advocate, Mr. Siddhesh Kotwal, Adv Ms. Ana Upadhyay, Adv Ms. Manya Hasija, Adv Ms. Pragya Barsaiyan, Adv Mr. Akash Singh, Adv Mr. Nirnimish Dube, Advocate, Mr. Joby P. Varghese, Advocate, Ms. Ranjeeta Rohatgi, Advocate, Dr. Manish Singhvi, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Arpit Parkash, Advocate, Mr. Sandeep Kumar Jha, Advocate, Mr. Ardhendumauli Kumar Prasad, AAG, Mr. Tanmaya Agarwal, Advocate, Mr. Wrick Chatterjee, Advocate, Mr. Rahul Verma, AAG, Mr. Vishwa Pal Singh, Advocate, Mr. Vikas Negi, Advocate, Mr. Rajendra Prasad, Advocate, Ms. Pallavi, Advocate, Mr. Dinesh Kumar Mudgal, Advocate, Mr. Arihant Mehta, Advocate, Mr. Vikas Gothwal, Advocate, Mr. Sanjiv Saraf, Advocate, Mr. Praphul Kumar Vohra, Advocate, Mr. Suhaan Mukerji, Advocate, Mr. Raghent Basant, Advocate, Mr. Vishal Prasad, Advocate, Mr. Nikhil Parikshith, Advocate, Mr. Abhishek Manchanda, Advocate, Mr. Sayandeep Paharii, Advocate, for M/s. PLR Chambers And Co., Advocate, Mr. Shubham Bhalla, Advocate, Mr. Yajur Bhalla, Advocate, Mr. Ashish Vajpayee, Advocate, Mr. Deepak Samota, Advocate, Mr. Sumeir Ahuja, Advocate, Mr. Aravindh S., Advocate, Ms. C. Rubavathi, Advocate, Mr. Sumeer Sodhi, Advocate, Mr. S. Udaya Kumar Sagar, Advocate, Ms. Sweena Nair, Advocate, Mr. P. Mohith Rao, Advocate, Mr. Krishan Raj Thaker, AAG, Ms. Pragya Baghel, Advocate, Mr. Abhishek Roy, Advocate, Ms. Tulika Mukherjee, Advocate, Ms. Aastha Shrestha, Advocate, Mr. Avijit Mani Tripathi, Advocate, Mr. T.K. Nayak, Advocate, Mr. K.V. Kharlyngdoh, Advocate, Mr. P. S. Negi, Advocate, Mr. Amit Anand Tiwari, AAG, Mr. D. Kumanan, Advocate, Mr. Chirag M. Shroff, Advocate, Mr. Amandeep Mehta, Advocate, Mr. Vivek Kohli, Advocate, Gen. Mr. Sameer Abhyankar, Advocate, Ms. Yeshi Rinchhen, Advocate, Mr. Abhinav Mishra, Advocate, Ms. Nishi Sangatani, Advocate, Mr. Abhinav Mukerji, Advocate, Mrs. Bihu Sharma, Advocate, Ms. Pratishta Vij, Advocate, Mr. Akshay Shrivastava, Advocate, Mr. Nishe Rajan Shonker, Advocate, Ms. Anu K. Joy, Advocate, Mr. Alim Anvar, Advocate, Mr. Abhimanyu Tewari, Advocate, Ms. Eliza Bar, Advocate, Mr. Pukhrambam Ramesh Kumar, Advocate, Ms. Anupama Ngangom, Advocate, Mr. Karun Sharma, Advocate, Mr. V.N. Raghupathy, Advocate, Mr. Md. Apzal Ansari, Advocate, Mrs. K. Enatoli Sema, Advocate, Mr. Amit Kumar Singh, Advocate, Ms. Chubalemla Chang, Advocate, For the Respondent.

The main legal point established is the obligation of states to comply with court orders, make timely compensation payments to eligible claimants, and provide opportunities for rectification of rejected claims.

Headnote:
Compensation - Covid-19 Deaths - State Actions - [Compensation] - [Covid-19 Deaths] - [Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 - Section 2(b)] - [Summary: The court addressed the non-compliance of earlier orders by various states in making timely compensation payments to the kin/family members of Covid-19 victims. The court highlighted the negligence and callousness of the states in not making payments despite receiving eligible claims. It directed the Chief Secretaries to show cause for potential contempt proceedings and emphasized the need for states to reach eligible claimants and ensure timely payments. The court also instructed the states to review rejected claims, communicate reasons for rejection, and provide opportunities for rectification.]
Fact of the Case:

The court addressed the non-compliance of earlier orders by various states in making timely compensation payments to the kin/family members of Covid-19 victims.
Finding of the Court:

The court found negligence and callousness on the part of the states in not making payments despite receiving eligible claims. It directed the Chief Secretaries to show cause for potential contempt proceedings and emphasized the need for states to reach eligible claimants and ensure timely payments.
Issues: Non-compliance with court orders, negligence in making compensation payments, potential contempt proceedings, and the need to reach eligible claimants.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of timely compensation payments to eligible claimants and directed the states to review rejected claims, communicate reasons for rejection, and provide opportunities for rectification.
Final Decision: The court directed the Chief Secretaries to show cause for potential contempt proceedings and instructed the states to take necessary actions to reach eligible claimants, ensure timely payments, and review rejected claims.

ORDER

1. State of Bihar:

We have gone through the affidavit filed by the State of Bihar.

Let the Chief Secretary remain present virtually at 2'0 Clock today.

2. State of Andhra Pradesh:

It is very unfortunate that, despite the earlier directions to pay the compensation to the kin/family member of the person who died due to Covid-19, and time and again directions are issued, there is a total callousness and negligence on the part of the State of Andhra Pradesh in not making the payment timely.

Even according to the State of Andhra Pradesh, as against 14,471 deaths recorded, after the earlier order passed by this Court, approximately 36,205 claims forms are received. It is unfortunate that, even according to the counsel, approximately 31,000 applications are found to be in order, only 11,464 claimants are made the payment. It appears that the State is not at all serious on compliance of the orders passed by this Court and the directions issued from time to time.

There is no justification shown whatsoever by the counsel not to make the payment to the claimants whose applications are already received and found to be in order. Not making the payment of compensation to the eligible claimants would tantamount to disobedience of our earlier order/directions for which the Chief Secretary is liable for action under the Contempt of Courts Act.

Let the Chief Secretary remain present virtually at 2'0 Clock today and is directed to show cause why the contempt proceedings may not be initiated against him for non-compliance of our earlier directions in not making the payment of compensation to the claimants whose applications are already found to be in order.

3. State of Kerala:

Insofar as the State of Kerala is concerned, against the registered deaths of 49,300, the State has received 27,274 claims, out of which 23,652 claims are sanctioned and paid. As ordered earlier, when the particulars of the deaths registered are already with the State Government, the Officers/administration must reach to those families whose particulars are already with the State Government and make the payment.

Mr. Nishe Rajan Shonker, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State of Kerala has submitted at the Bar that necessary instructions shall be issued and he will see to it that at least with respect to those deaths already registered with the State Government, the particulars of which are already with the State Government, the payment of compensation shall be made within a period of one week from today and, if required, the administration shall reach to those persons.

4. State of Maharashtra:

Mr. Rahul Chitnis, learned counsel appearing for the State of Maharashtra has stated at the Bar that, out of the total 1,41,885 deaths registered against which the State has received 2,17,151 claims. It is reported that out of the applications received, 1,02,772 claims are approved and the payments have been made. It is reported that further 49,113 claims have been rejected on various grounds. He has stated at the Bar that with respect to the remaining applications/claims received, the same are under process and the actual payments shall be made within a period of one week from today.

On the next date of hearing, learned counsel appearing for the State to place on record a tabular chart showing the reasons for rejection of the claims and whether all the claimants whose claims forms have been rejected are informed and/or give an opportunity to take corrective measures or not.

5. State of Gujarat

So far as the State of Gujarat is concerned, Ms. Manisha Lavkumar, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the State has filed a note on behalf of the State of Gujarat. It is submitted that an exclusive mobile friendly online portal has already been set up by the State of Gujarat, which remains operative since 03.12.2021 to facilitate the heirs of the persons who have passed away due to Covid-19 to upload applications for ex-gratia payments as directed by this Court. It is submitted th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document