Supreme Court Directs Ban on Disinfectant Spray on Humans: Gurusimran Singh Narula vs. Union of India (2020)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 05 November 2020

Citation: (2020) INSC 849

Judges: Ashok Bhushan, J., R. Subhash Reddy, J., and M.R. Shah, J.

Bench Composition: 3-Judge Bench

Can the government allow the use of disinfectant sprays on people, even if it’s meant to protect them from COVID-19? The Supreme Court of India tackled this critical question in a public interest litigation, examining the legality of such practices during the pandemic. The core issue was whether the use of chemical or organic disinfectants and ultraviolet rays on human beings, without proper approval, violates the fundamental right to health and life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court bench, comprising Justices Ashok Bhushan, R. Subhash Reddy, and M.R. Shah, delivered a judgment addressing these concerns.

Case Background

In the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, various measures were adopted globally, including in India, to contain the spread of the virus. The Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India, issued guidelines on March 29, 2020, for disinfecting public places, emphasizing that the virus spreads through respiratory droplets and contaminated surfaces. However, on April 18, 2020, the Directorate General of Health Services (EMR Division) advised against spraying disinfectants on people. Despite this, many organizations began using disinfection tunnels, which sprayed chemicals on individuals, leading to public concerns.

The petitioner, Gurusimran Singh Narula, filed a writ petition on June 5, 2020, under Article 32 of the Constitution, seeking a ban on the use of disinfection tunnels that spray chemical or organic disinfectants, or expose people to ultraviolet rays. The petitioner argued that these practices were harmful and lacked scientific evidence of effectiveness against COVID-19. The petition highlighted that many public authorities were using these methods despite the lack of approval from the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare.

The petitioner also referred to publications from the World Health Organization (WHO), which stated that spraying disinfectants on the body does not protect against COVID-19 and can be dangerous. The petitioner further contended that the use of UV lamps to disinfect hands and skin was also not recommended by WHO.

Timeline

Legal Framework

The case primarily revolves around Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which guarantees the protection of life and personal liberty. The Supreme Court has interpreted this to include the right to live with dignity and the right to health.

The Disaster Management Act, 2005, was also a key part of the legal framework. This Act provides for the effective management of disasters, including measures for prevention, mitigation, and preparedness. COVID-19 was declared a notified disaster under this Act. Section 10 of the Act outlines the powers and functions of the National Executive Committee, which includes the power to give directions regarding measures to be taken during a disaster. Specifically, Section 10(2)(i) and 10(2)(l) were delegated to the Secretary of the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, empowering them to issue guidelines and directions.

Section 36 of the Disaster Management Act, 2005, outlines the responsibilities of Ministries and Departments of the Government of India. It mandates that every ministry or department must take measures for prevention of disasters, mitigation, preparedness and capacity building in accordance with the guidelines laid down by the National Authority.

The court also considered the Atomic Energy (Radiation Processing of Food and Allied Product) Rules, 2012, which regulate the use of radiation, including UV rays, for processing food and other products.

Arguments

The petitioner argued that despite the advisory issued by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare on April 18, 2020, against spraying disinfectants on humans, the Union of India had not taken adequate steps to stop the use, advertisement, and sale of chemical-based disinfection tunnels. The petitioner contended that there was no credible scientific evidence supporting the effectiveness of human disinfection tunnels against COVID-19. Instead, health advisories from WHO and other international agencies suggested that such tunnels were counterproductive and harmful.

The petitioner also highlighted the trend of people producing self-certified disinfection tunnels using various organic solutions, without any recommendation from health authorities. The petitioner argued that the concept of “human disinfection” through walk-in tunnels was flawed and violated the Right to Health under Article 21 of the Constitution.

The Union of India, represented by the Solicitor General, submitted that they had not issued any advisory for the usage, installation, production, or advertisement of disinfection tunnels involving spraying or fumigation of chemicals or organic disinfectants for disinfecting human beings. They referred to the advisory dated April 18, 2020, and the meeting held on June 9, 2020, which reiterated that spraying disinfectants was not recommended. The Union of India stated that the responsibility for implementing these guidelines rested with the States and Union Territories, while the Central Government’s role was limited to providing guidelines and financial support.

The intervenor, a company that designed pressurized steam disinfectant chambers using natural oils, argued against a blanket ban, stating that their product was different from chemical disinfectant tunnels and promoted health.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issues for consideration:

1. Whether spraying or fumigation of any kind of chemical disinfectants on human beings without the approval of the relevant ministry is violative of Article 21?
2. Whether spraying or fumigation of any kind of self-claimed organic disinfectant on human beings without the approval of the relevant Ministry is violative of Article 21?
3. Whether exposure of human beings to artificial ultraviolet rays is violative of Article 21?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues:

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

• Devika Biswas vs. Union of India and others, (2016) 10 SCC 726 – The Supreme Court of India, held that the Right to Health is an integral facet of the Right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.

• Commissioner of Police versus Gordhandas Bhanji, AIR 1952 SC 16 – The Supreme Court of India, laid down that an enabling power conferred for public reasons and for public benefit is coupled with a duty to exercise it when the circumstances so demand.

• L.Hirday Narain versus Income Tax Officer, Bareilly, (1970) 2 SCC 355 – The Supreme Court of India, reiterated that if a statute invests a public officer with authority to do an act, it is imperative upon him to exercise his authority when a party interested moves in that behalf.

• Municipal Council, Ratlam versus Shri Vardichan and others, (1980) 4 SCC 162 – The Supreme Court of India, held that all power is a trust and that discretion becomes a duty when the beneficiary brings home the circumstances for its benign exercise.

• Section 10, Disaster Management Act, 2005 – This section outlines the powers and functions of the National Executive Committee, including the power to give directions regarding measures to be taken during a disaster.

• Section 36, Disaster Management Act, 2005 – This section outlines the responsibilities of Ministries and Departments of the Government of India, mandating measures for disaster prevention and mitigation.

• Atomic Energy (Radiation Processing of Food and Allied Product) Rules, 2012 – These rules regulate the use of radiation, including UV rays, for processing food and other products.

Judgment

The Court analyzed the submissions and authorities as follows:

✓ The Court relied on Devika Biswas vs. Union of India and others, (2016) 10 SCC 726* to highlight that the right to health is an integral facet of the right to life under Article 21, emphasizing the importance of protecting citizens’ health during the pandemic.

✓ The Court cited Commissioner of Police versus Gordhandas Bhanji, AIR 1952 SC 16* to underscore that when a statute confers power on an authority for the benefit of the people, the power is coupled with a duty to exercise it, which means the authorities are obligated to act in the best interest of the public.

✓ The Court referred to L.Hirday Narain versus Income Tax Officer, Bareilly, (1970) 2 SCC 355* to reiterate that a public officer must exercise their authority when circumstances demand, reinforcing the idea that the government has a duty to act when there is a potential threat to public health.

✓ The Court also relied on Municipal Council, Ratlam versus Shri Vardichan and others, (1980) 4 SCC 162* to emphasize that all power is a trust and that discretion becomes a duty when the beneficiary brings home the circumstances for its benign exercise, indicating that the government must act responsibly and for the benefit of its citizens.

✓ The Court considered the provisions of the Disaster Management Act, 2005, specifically Section 10 and Section 36, to highlight the powers and responsibilities of the National Executive Committee and the Ministries and Departments of the Government of India during a disaster.

✓ The Court also referred to the Atomic Energy (Radiation Processing of Food and Allied Product) Rules, 2012, to highlight that there is a regulatory regime for use of UV rays.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily driven by the need to protect the health of the citizens, especially given the lack of scientific evidence supporting the use of disinfectant sprays on humans and the potential harm they could cause. The Court emphasized that the government has a duty to act in the best interest of the people and cannot merely issue advisories without taking concrete steps to regulate or prevent harmful practices.

The Court’s reasoning was that the use of disinfectants on human beings was not supported by scientific evidence and could be harmful. The Court also noted that the government had not taken adequate steps to regulate or prevent the use of such practices, despite issuing advisories against them. The Court held that the government had a duty to protect the health of its citizens and could not simply issue advisories without taking concrete action.

The Court considered alternative interpretations but rejected them because the health and safety of the citizens was paramount. The Court emphasized that the government has a duty to act in the best interest of the people and cannot merely issue advisories without taking concrete steps to regulate or prevent harmful practices.

The Court’s decision was unanimous, with all three judges agreeing on the need for the government to take action. The Court did not introduce any new doctrines or legal principles but rather reaffirmed the existing principles of the right to health under Article 21 and the government’s duty to act in the best interest of its citizens.

The Court quoted from the judgment:

“Right to life as recognized under Article 21 is Right to live with dignity. Right to health is also recognized as an important facet of Article 21 of the Constitution.”

“The State will realise that Article 47 makes it a paramount principle of governance that steps are taken ‘for the improvement of public health as amongst its primary duties’.”

“The provisions of Disaster Management Act, Section 10, 36 and other provisions are not only provisions of empowerment but also cast a duty on different authorities to act in the best interest of the people to sub-serve the objects of the Act.”

Key Takeaways

• The Supreme Court directed the government to consider a ban or regulation on the use of disinfection tunnels involving spraying or fumigation of chemical or organic disinfectants on human beings.
• The Court also directed the government to consider similar measures regarding the exposure of human beings to artificial ultraviolet rays.
• The Court emphasized that the government has a duty to protect the health of its citizens and cannot merely issue advisories without taking concrete steps to regulate or prevent harmful practices.
• The Court highlighted that any measures taken during a disaster must be based on scientific evidence and must not violate the fundamental rights of citizens.

This judgment has significant implications for future cases involving public health and disaster management. It reinforces the importance of scientific evidence in policymaking and the government’s duty to protect the health and safety of its citizens.

Directions

The Supreme Court issued the following directions:

1. The respondent No.1 (Union of India) may consider and issue necessary directions in exercise of powers vested in it under the Disaster Management Act, 2005, regarding ban/regulation on the usage of disinfection tunnels involving spraying or fumigation of chemical/organic disinfectants for the human beings.
2. There shall be similar consideration and directions by the respondents as indicated above with regard to exposure of human being to artificial ultraviolet rays.
3. Looking to the health concern of the people in general, the aforesaid exercise be completed by respondent No.1 within a period of one month.

Specific Amendments Analysis

There were no specific amendments discussed in this judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the government has a duty to protect the health of its citizens, and any measures taken during a disaster must be based on scientific evidence and must not violate the fundamental rights of citizens. The judgment reinforces the government’s responsibility to act decisively when public health is at risk. This case did not change the previous position of law, but rather reaffirmed the existing principles of the right to health under Article 21 and the government’s duty to act in the best interest of its citizens.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Gurusimran Singh Narula vs. Union of India is a landmark decision that emphasizes the importance of protecting citizens’ health and fundamental rights during a pandemic. The Court directed the government to take concrete steps to regulate or ban the use of disinfection tunnels and exposure to ultraviolet rays on human beings, highlighting that the government cannot merely issue advisories without taking further action. This judgment reinforces the principle that public health measures must be based on scientific evidence and must not violate the fundamental rights of citizens.