Supreme Court Directs NDMA To Pay Ex Gratia To Covid Vicitms
Editor-in-Chief of indiacommentary.com. Current Affairs analyst and political commentator. Author of Cyber Scams in India, Digital Arrest, The Money Trap and The Human Hack
View all posts by this Author
By Sunil Garodia
First publised on 2021-07-01 11:45:33
About the Author
Editor-in-Chief of indiacommentary.com. Current Affairs analyst and political commentator. Author of Cyber Scams in India, Digital Arrest, The Money Trap and The Human Hack
View all posts by this Author
The Supreme Court has directed the National Disaster Management Authority (NDMA) to quantify within 6 weeks the ex gratia payment that is to be paid to almost four lakh Covid victims as the pandemic was declared a disaster under the Disaster Management Act (DM Act). The court was of the view that the NDMA has failed to discharge its statutory duty in this regard. The court also made it clear that whatever ex gratia the NDMA decided to pay would be over and above what the victims will or might have received from amounts paid by state governments from any other source.
But the Centre had recently argued before the court that while the NDMA and State Disaster Response Fund (SDRF) were financially capable of paying ex gratia, the conscious and considered decision of the government was to use those funds in creating health infrastructure to fight the pandemic and other future disasters and to provide related relief to the poor and the migrants. To support it decision, the Centre had argued that the word "shall" in Section 12 of the DM Act should be read as "may" and should be understood to be discretionary rather than directory. It also argued that the intent of the legislature was to leave ex gratia payment to the discretion of the government. Hence, the government said it will not pay ex gratia assistance.
From the Supreme Court directive to the NDMA it is clear that the court has not been impressed by the government stand. The court said that "to construe the word 'shall' as 'may' and as directory/discretionary, the very object and purpose of the Act will be defeated. The word 'shall' used twice in Section 12 significantly imposes a duty cast upon the National Authority to issue guidelines for the minimum standards of relief which shall include ex gratia assistance on account of loss of life as also assistance on account of damage to houses and for restoration of means of livelihood." The court also added that since the word shall was used twice, it is clear that the legislature intended it as a direction and it was not left to the discretion of the government.
The court categorically said that "it can be said that the national authority has failed to perform its statutory duty cast under Section 12." It is true that the Centre is trying to wriggle out of its statutory obligation and one that has been traditionally followed ever since the DM Act came into force. What the Centre thinks is a literal interpretation of the provisions is what has been understood till now and providing ex gratia to the kin of disaster victims was directed by the legislature as compulsory and not left to the discretion of the government. It is not proper on the Centre's part to suddenly try and read other meanings in the provision just because it thinks the money can be better used elsewhere. It is good that the apex court has refused to go along with the Centre's interpretation.
