LEGAL ISSUE: Setting a deadline for ex-gratia claims and ordering scrutiny of claims related to COVID-19 deaths.
CASE TYPE: Public Interest Litigation/Disaster Management
Case Name: Gaurav Kumar Bansal vs. Union of India & Ors.
[Judgment Date]: 24 March 2022
Introduction
Date of the Judgment: 24 March 2022
Citation: (2022) INSC 223
Judges: M.R. Shah, J. and B.V. Nagarathna, J.
How long should the government accept claims for compensation related to COVID-19 deaths? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question while also expressing concerns about potential fraudulent claims. The court set a deadline for filing claims and ordered a sample scrutiny to verify the authenticity of the claims. This decision impacts families seeking ex-gratia compensation and aims to ensure that only genuine claimants receive the benefits. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice M.R. Shah and Justice B.V. Nagarathna.
Case Background
The case originated from a writ petition filed by Gaurav Kumar Bansal, seeking ex-gratia compensation for families of those who died due to COVID-19. The Supreme Court had earlier directed the Union of India and State Governments to provide compensation. Subsequently, concerns arose regarding the indefinite nature of the claim submission process and the possibility of false claims. The Union of India filed an application seeking modification of the earlier orders to set a deadline for claims and to allow for scrutiny of submitted claims.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 30 June 2021 | Supreme Court passed an order directing ex-gratia payment for COVID-19 deaths. |
| 29 November 2021 | Supreme Court passed a subsequent order regarding ex-gratia payment. |
| 24 March 2022 | Supreme Court passed the order setting a deadline for claims and ordering sample scrutiny. |
| 20 March 2022 | Cut-off date for deaths due to COVID-19 for which 60 days time is provided to file claims. |
Legal Framework
The Supreme Court referred to Section 52 of the Disaster Management Act, 2005, which deals with the punishment for making false claims. The section reads:
“52. Punishment for false claim.— Whoever knowingly makes a claim which he knows or has reason to believe to be false for obtaining any relief, assistance, repair, reconstruction or other benefits consequent to disaster from any officer of the Central Government, the State Government, the National Authority, the State Authority or the District Authority, shall, on conviction be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, and also with fine.”
This provision highlights that submitting false claims for disaster relief is a punishable offense, with potential imprisonment and fines.
Arguments
The Union of India, represented by the learned Solicitor General, argued that:
-
Since the COVID-19 pandemic has subsided, most genuine claimants would have already approached the authorities.
-
Continuing the process of receiving claims without a deadline could lead to a greater possibility of false claims.
-
There should be an audit or random scrutiny of claim applications due to apprehensions of fake claims in some states.
-
Receiving ex-gratia compensation by making a false claim or submitting fake certificates is a serious matter and a punishable offense under Section 52 of the Disaster Management Act, 2005.
The States of Kerala, Andhra Pradesh, and Maharashtra supported the Union of India’s submissions and welcomed the sample scrutiny to identify persons who have made false claims.
| Main Submissions | Sub-Submissions |
|---|---|
| Need for a Deadline |
✓ COVID-19 pandemic has subsided. ✓ Genuine claimants would have approached authorities. ✓ Indefinite claim process increases false claim risk. |
| Need for Scrutiny |
✓ Apprehensions of fake claims in some states. ✓ False claims are a serious offense under the Disaster Management Act, 2005. |
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court considered the following issues:
- Whether a deadline should be set for filing ex-gratia claims for COVID-19 deaths.
- Whether a scrutiny of the claims should be conducted to prevent fraudulent claims.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
| Issue | Court’s Decision |
|---|---|
| Deadline for Filing Claims | The Court set a deadline of 60 days from the date of the order for claims related to deaths before 20 March 2022 and 90 days from the date of death for future deaths. |
| Scrutiny of Claims | The Court ordered a random scrutiny of 5% of the claim applications in Andhra Pradesh, Gujarat, Kerala, and Maharashtra. |
Authorities
The Supreme Court considered the following legal provision:
- Section 52 of the Disaster Management Act, 2005: This section specifies the punishment for making false claims to obtain relief related to a disaster.
| Authority | How it was considered |
|---|---|
| Section 52 of the Disaster Management Act, 2005 | Cited to highlight that making false claims for relief is a punishable offense. |
Judgment
| Submission by Parties | How it was treated by the Court |
|---|---|
| Union of India’s submission for a four-week deadline | The Court deemed four weeks too short and extended the deadline to 60 days for past deaths and 90 days for future deaths. |
| Union of India’s submission for random scrutiny of claims | The Court accepted the need for scrutiny and ordered a random sample scrutiny of 5% of the claims in select states. |
The Court considered Section 52 of the Disaster Management Act, 2005, to emphasize that making a false claim is a punishable offense. It stated:
“Nobody can be permitted to avail the ex-gratia compensation by making a false claim and/or submitting the false certificate. A claimant is entitled to the ex-gratia of Rs.50,000/- being a kin/family member of those, who died due to COVID-19.”
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court was primarily concerned with preventing fraudulent claims while ensuring that genuine claimants receive the ex-gratia compensation. The Court balanced the need to provide relief to affected families with the need to maintain the integrity of the compensation process. The court emphasized the moral and ethical implications of making false claims.
| Sentiment | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Prevention of Fraudulent Claims | 60% |
| Ensuring Genuine Claims | 40% |
| Ratio | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 30% |
| Law | 70% |
Key Takeaways
-
The deadline for filing ex-gratia claims for COVID-19 deaths that occurred before 20 March 2022 is 60 days from 24 March 2022.
-
For deaths occurring after 20 March 2022, the deadline is 90 days from the date of death.
-
A random scrutiny of 5% of the claim applications will be conducted in Andhra Pradesh, Gujarat, Kerala, and Maharashtra.
-
Making a false claim for ex-gratia compensation is a punishable offense under Section 52 of the Disaster Management Act, 2005.
-
Claimants who could not apply within the stipulated time due to extreme hardship can approach the Grievance Redressal Committee.
Directions
The Supreme Court directed the following:
-
The Ministry of Health and Family Welfare and the Ministry of Home Affairs, Union of India, and all concerned States are to give wide publicity to the order through print and electronic media.
-
The advertisement should be published fortnightly for a period of six weeks.
-
The concerned States are directed to assist in carrying out the scrutiny of the claim applications.
-
The Ministry of Health and Family Welfare is to carry out the scrutiny within three months and submit a report to the Court.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of this case is that while providing ex-gratia compensation, it is necessary to balance the needs of genuine claimants with the need to prevent fraudulent claims. The court set a deadline for claims and ordered a sample scrutiny to ensure the integrity of the process. This decision clarifies the time frame for future claims related to COVID-19 deaths and sets a precedent for handling similar situations in the future. There is no change in the previous position of law.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s judgment sets a clear deadline for ex-gratia claims related to COVID-19 deaths, addressing concerns about the possibility of false claims. By ordering a sample scrutiny and emphasizing the legal consequences of submitting false claims, the Court aims to ensure that the compensation reaches genuine claimants while maintaining the integrity of the process.