SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, R. MAHADEVAN, JJ.
Pradeep Arora and Others – Appellants
Versus
Director, Health Department, Govt. of Maharashtra and Others – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 14742 of 2025 [Special Leave Petition (C) No. 16860 of 2021]
Decided On : 11-12-2025
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. covid-19 impacts and government assurances. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. regulations for requisitioning health services during covid-19. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. claim denial based on lack of requisition evidence. (Para 11 , 12 , 15) |
| 4. court's interpretation of requisitioning services. (Para 18 , 20 , 24) |
| 5. conclusion on individual claims for insurance. (Para 30 , 31) |
JUDGMENT :
1. Leave granted.
2. The onset of COVID-19 pandemic at the dawn of 2020 was unprecedented in its global sweep and consequence. Not since the 1918 influenza pandemic, an event coeval with the first world war, had a single infectious disease inflicted such widespread crisis on human civilisation. The global death toll rising to millions, as revealed in the World Health Organisation’s data, presents a tragic picture of this disruption. While COVID-19 pandemic exposed an acute systemic fragility within the global healthcare sector, highlighted lack of preparedness and strained the capacity of health professionals, our doctors and health professionals rose as unwavering heroes, turning challenges into courage. Indian Medical Association’s COVID-19 registry records 748 doctors' deaths in the first wave and hundreds more in subsequent waves; one estimate noted around 798 doctors lost during the second wave alone.
3. Four years after the pandemic, when we are called upon to interpret the Government’s assurance under the Pradhan Mantri Garib Kalyan Yojna, an insurance scheme for doctors and healthcare workers fighting Covid-19, we can neither forget the situation that prevailed in 2020, nor the purport of State’s assurance to the doctors who were ‘requisitioned’ invoking special laws and regulations. A claim for insurance by appellant no. 3, wife of a deceased doctor was rejected on the ground that there is no proof of ‘requisitioning’ of his services for Covid related duties. This decision was upheld by the High Court in the order impugned before us. We are called upon to examine if there is ‘requisitioning’ of the services of appellant no. 2. Tasked with this duty, we will now proceed to examine the laws, rules and regulation, by which requisitioning was done.
4. In exercise of powers conferred by sections 2, 3 & 4 of the EPIDEMIC DISEASES ACT , 1897, the Government of Maharashtra issued Prevention and Containment of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Regulations on 14.03.2020. Regulation 10 empowered the Municipal Commissioner to requisition the services of any person if so required.
Regulations 10 to 13 are extracted herein-below for ready reference:
“GOVERNMENT OF MAHARASHTRA
PUBLIC HEALTH DEPARTMENT
G.T. Hospital Compound, 10th Floor, New Mantralaya,
Mumbai 400 001
Dated 14th March, 2020
NOTIFICATION
No. Corona-2020/CR-58/Aarogya-5: Whereas State Government has decided to invoke provisions of Epidemic Disease Act, 1897 vide Notification No. Corona 2020/CR 58/Aarogya-5, dated 13th March, 2020 from the date of issue of the notification.
Therefore in exercise of the powers conferred under section 2, 3 & 4 of the EPIDEMIC DISEASES ACT , 1897, Government of Maharashtra is pleased to frame following Regulations for prevention and containment of Coronavirus Disease-2019 (COVID-19).
(…)
Regulation 10 - In the event of COVID-19 being reported from a defined geographic area such as village, town, ward, colony, settlement, the Collector of the concerned District/Municipal Commissioner of the concerned Municipal Corporation shall be competent to implement following containment measures, but not limited to these, in order to prevent spread of the disease.
i. Sealing of the geographical area.
ii. Barring entry and exit of population from the containment area.
iii. Restricting Vehicular Movement in the area.
iv. Closure of schools, offices, cinema halls, swimming pools, gyms, etc. and banning mass congregations, functions as may be deemed necessary.
v. Initiating active and passive surveillance of COVID-19 cases.
vi. Hospital isolation of all suspected cases and their contacts.
vii. Designa
AI
The court affirmed that requisitioning of medical professionals' services under the Epidemic Diseases Act during COVID-19 is essential for claiming benefits under the Pradhan Mantri Garib Kalyan Yoja....
Private practice of hospital not entitled for compensation under the Mantri Garib Kalyan Package
The main legal principle established is the interpretation of the Scheme to provide financial assistance to health workers who lost their lives on account of Covid-19 related duties, widening the def....
The definition of health workers under welfare schemes must be interpreted broadly to include all staff in direct contact with patients during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Welfare schemes, like the COVID-19 ex-gratia compensation, must be interpreted broadly to fulfill their intended purpose and benefits for the deceased's family.
The court upheld that claims under the Pradhan Mantri Garib Kalyan Package necessitate strict compliance with eligibility and documentation requirements, failure of which results in dismissal.
The court ruled that the absence of an RTPCR test certificate does not preclude compensation claims for frontline workers who died from Covid-19 while performing their duties.
The court ruled that formal documentation is not strictly necessary for ex gratia compensation if the employee's duties inherently involved exposure to Covid-19, especially during the pandemic.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.