The Supreme Court on Thursday expressed contentment over the Central government’s decision to provide ex-gratia of Rs 50,000 as financial help to the family of persons who died due to Covid-19 amid the pandemic.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta informed the Apex Court that those persons who have committed suicide suffering from Covid-19, will also be entitled to avail the financial help as granted under SDRF, in accordance with the guidelines issued by NDMA under Section 12 (iii) of DMA.

A bench led by Justices M.R. Shah and A.S. Bopanna reserved its order for October 4, after a deliberate hearing on the counter affidavit filed by the Centre. 

Justice Shah asked the SG, “In a case of heart attack, if the death certificate said the cause of death is heart attack, but if it was caused due to Novel Coronavirus, then what should be done? 

The Solicitor General told the bench that in that case, liberty would be granted to the next of kin of the deceased to raise a grievance before the concerned District Level Committee, as envisaged in guidelines dated November 3, 2021, that the cause of death of his/her kin was Covid-related, as per the parameters prescribed in the guidelines. 

Justice MR Shah said, “We will pass some orders, Mr Mehta. We are very happy.”

“We have heard the Counsels, in compliance of our earlier orders. For orders, put up on October 4,” recorded the bench.

Also Read: Supreme Court reserves verdict on plea seeking free education to every child with special needs, disabled children

The Centre, through its additional affidavit, informed the bench that Covid-19 cases, for the purpose of these guidelines, are those which are diagnosed through a positive RT- PCR/ Molecular Tests/ RAT OR determined investigations hospital/ facility by a treating physician, while admitting in the hospital/ in patient facility. The Covid-19 cases, which are not resolved and have died either in hospital settings or at home, and where a Medical Certificate of Cause of Death (MCCD) in Form 4 & 4 A has been issued to the registering authority, as required under Section 10 of the Registration of Birth and Death (RBD) Act, 1969, will be treated as a Covid-19 death.

1. To make the scope broader and more inclusive, deaths occurring within 30 days from the date of testing or from the date of being clinically determined as a COVD-19 case, will be treated as’ deaths due to Covid-19′, even if the death takes place outside the hospital/ in-patient facility. Also, a COVID-19 case, while admitted in the hospital/in-patient facility, and who continued to be admitted beyond 30 days, and died subsequently, shall be treated as a Covid-19 death.

Further, under the Guidelines any certificate of death issued by hospitals / government authority prior to coming into force of the Guidelines dated 3.09.2021, can be reviewed and rectified and consequently freshly issued. It is submitted that liberty would be granted to the next of kin of the deceased to raise a grievance before the concerned District Level Committee, as envisaged in guidelines dated November 3, 2021, that the cause of death of his/her kin was COVID related as per the parameters prescribed in the Guidelines dated November 3, 2021, however, the death certificate issued do no recognises it as ‘death due to Covid-19’ and mentions some other incidental cause in the death certificate issued as the cause of death.

Also Read: Supreme Court dismisses contempt plea against former Home Secretary Rajiv Gauba, directs petitioner to approach authority for additional security

On such application the District Level Committee, will examine the contemporaneous medical records of the deceased patient in light of the guidelines dated 3.09.2021, and if, District Level Committee comes to the conclusion that the case of the applicant indeed falls within the parameters contemplated under the guidelines dated November 3, 2021, then District Level Committee would issue a fresh or corrected certificate for the deceased in accordance with the guidelines dated 3.09.2021 certifying his death to be covid related death eligible for financial / other assistance as provided by the Central Government/SDRF. Further, the district level committee proposed in the guidelines shall also consider any dispute between the hospital and the family regarding the cause of death.”

The National Disaster Management Authority under the Disaster Management Act though its affidavit has informed the Apex Court yesterday that it has recommended an amount of Rs 50,000 each as ex-gratia payment to families of deceased persons including those involved in relief operations or associated in preparedness activities subject to cause of death being certified as Covid-19.

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has imposed a cost of Rs 50,000 on a petitioner for wasting the precious time of the Court by not inform it regarding the parallel proceedings going on in the Supreme Court.

The Indore Division Bench of Justice Sujoy Paul and Justice Anil Verma observed on August 17, “We may record with pains that in all fairness, the petitioner should have informed the Court at the threshold that he has filed such proceedings before the apex court and seeks to withdraw this plea. The petitioner wasted precious time of the court by arguing the matter on merits.”

The Bench observed that the petitioner cited various judgments/orders and after wasting considerable time (around 30 minutes), it informed the Court about filing of appeal before the Supreme Court.

“We deprecate this practice. At present, the Indore Bench is working with almost 50 percent strength of Judges. Every single minute is precious. Thus, while permitting the withdrawal of this petition with the liberty prayed for, we deem it proper to impose cost on the petitioner for his conduct of wasting precious time. We quantify the cost as Rs 50,000, which shall be deposited before the High Court Legal Aid Committee within 30 days from today, failing which, the said Committee shall apprise the Court about non-compliance,”

the order read.

Also Read: Delhi High Court, district courts to resume physical hearing from August 31, 24

Manish Nair, representing the petitioner, said that the petitioner has already filed an appeal before the Supreme Court against the order of the National Green Tribunal, which became reason for passing the August 2, 2021 order by the Pollution Control Board.

During the course of arguments, Mr Nair narrated the facts in extenso. He handed over a compilation of judgments containing seven judgments/orders.

He submitted that the petitioner seeks to withdraw this plea to press his appeal filed before the Supreme Court, but till such time the said matter is taken up by apex court, the petitioner may be protected by holding that respondents shall not take any coercive action against the petitioner till the matter is taken up by the Supreme Court and the prayer for interim relief is considered.

Also Read: Madhya Pradesh HC disposes of PIL seeking inquiry into illegal construction in school

The prayer was opposed by Aniket Naik, Counsel for the respondents.

So far prayer for interim protection till such time apex court considers the interim prayer is concerned, the High Court cited the judgment of Supreme Court in 2010 (Kalabharati Advertising vs. Hemant Vimalnath Narichania & Ors.), to decide that the said prayer cannot be accepted.

The relevant para said: “22. It is a settled legal proposition that the forum of the writ court cannot be used for the purpose of giving interim relief as the only and the final relief to any litigant. If the Court comes to the conclusion that the matter requires adjudication by some other appropriate forum and relegates the said party to that forum, it should not grant any interim relief in favour of such a litigant for an interregnum period till the said party approaches the alternative forum and obtains interim relief. (vide: State of Orissa vs. Madan Gopal Rungta, AIR 1952 SC 12; Amarsarjit Singh vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1962 SC 1305; State of Orissa vs. Ram Chandra Dev, AIR 1964 SC 685; State of Bihar vs. Rambalak Singh “Balak” & Ors., AIR 1966 SC 1441; and Premier Automobiles Ltd. vs. Kamlakar Shantaram Wadke & Ors., AIR 1975 SC 2238).”