In
March 2020, as the COVID-19 pandemic unleashed a silent, invisible siege upon
the world, governments scrambled to enact emergency measures. In India,
alongside lockdowns and travel bans, two parallel actions were taken: the state
commandeered the services of healthcare professionals, and the central
government promised them a safety net—a ₹50
lakh insurance cover under the Pradhan Mantri Garib Kalyan Yojana (PMGKY). For
the families of fallen heroes, these two actions were meant to be interlocking
pieces of a promise. But a narrow, bureaucratic interpretation threatened to
break that link, asking for a signed "requisition slip" as proof of a
national call to duty.
In
a landmark judgment on December 11, 2025, in Pradeep Arora & Ors. v.
Director, Health Department, Govt. of Maharashtra, the Supreme Court of India
stepped in to reconcile the letter of the law with the spirit of a nation’s
pledge. This is not just a case about insurance; it is a profound legal lesson
in interpreting state power during a crisis, the nature of
"requisition," and the duty of the courts to look beyond formalistic
documentation to the reality of a historical emergency. For legal
professionals, policymakers, and healthcare administrators, this ruling is a
masterclass in contextual statutory interpretation and a poignant reminder of
the social contract during a national calamity.
The Heart of the Case: A Doctor’s Death and
a Denied Claim
The
facts are tragically straightforward:
a. The Doctor: Late Dr. B.S. Surgade,
a private medical practitioner running a clinic in Navi Mumbai.
b. The State's Command:
On March 31, 2020, the Municipal Commissioner of Navi Mumbai Municipal
Corporation (NMMC) issued a notice to Dr. Surgade. Invoking the Epidemic Diseases
Act, 1897, and the state’s COVID-19 Regulations, it directed him to keep his
clinic open during the lockdown, warning of criminal prosecution (FIR under IPC
Section 188) for non-compliance. A subsequent circular from the Director of
Medical Education & Research on May 9, 2020, specifically requested
registered medical practitioners to make their services available for COVID-19
prevention and treatment.
a. The Central Promise:
On March 28, 2020, the Union Government launched the PMGKY Insurance Scheme,
providing a ₹50 lakh cover to public healthcare
providers and, crucially, to b."private hospital staff... requisitioned by
States/Central hospitals... for COVID-19 related responsibilities."
c. The Tragedy:
Dr. Surgade tested positive for COVID-19 on June 8, 2020, and succumbed to the
infection on June 10, 2020.
d. The Denial: His widow’s insurance claim was rejected. The reason? The authorities concluded Dr. Surgade was merely running his private practice; his services had not been "requisitioned" for COVID-19 duties, and his clinic was not a designated COVID-19 center.
The
Bombay High Court upheld this denial, drawing a sharp distinction:
a. The May circular was a "specific
requisition."
b. The March NMMC notice was merely an order to
keep a clinic open, not a requisition for COVID-19 work.
The
Supreme Court was called upon to answer one pivotal question: In the chaotic
early days of the pandemic, what constituted "requisition"?
The Supreme Court’s Reasoning: Context is
King
The
Court’s judgment, authored by Justice P.S. Narasimha, is a powerful rejection
of a pedantic, paperwork-centric view of emergency powers. It framed the issue
within the overwhelming context of the time.
1.
The Unprecedented Legal Backdrop: A State of Emergency
The
Court began by outlining the extraordinary legal environment of March 2020:
a. The colonial-era Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897
was invoked.
b. The Maharashtra Government issued the Prevention
and Containment of COVID-19 Regulations, 2020.
c. Regulation 10 explicitly empowered the
Municipal Commissioner to "requisition the services of any other
person" for containment measures.
d. Regulation 11 made violations punishable
under the Indian Penal Code.
The
Court emphasized that this was not business as usual. This was the state
deploying its utmost coercive and administrative powers to marshal all
available resources against a public health catastrophe. In such a scenario,
the Court reasoned, the notion of "requisition" could not be limited
to individual appointment letters or specific postings.
2.
Interpreting the NMMC Notice: A Directive as Requisition
The
Court dismantled the High Court’s artificial distinction. It read the NMMC
notice dated March 31, 2020, in its full context:
a. It was issued under the Epidemic Diseases
Act and the 2020 Regulations.
b. It referenced a prior order (No. 123/2020)
directing clinics to remain open.
c. It used the word "ordered" and
threatened penal consequences.
d. Its ultimate purpose was to ensure medical manpower was available in the system to fight the spread of COVID-19.
The
Court held: "Taking into account the live situation that existed... there
cannot be any doubt about the compelling situation in which the Governments and
their instrumentalities requisitioned services of doctors... It is not
difficult to conceive the situation, in which individual letter of appointment
or requisitioning would not have been possible."
3.
The Synergy of Actions: Law, Order, and Insurance
The
Court adopted a holistic view, looking at the state’s actions in tandem:
a. Step 1 (Law): The state invokes
extraordinary powers to compel medical services (Epidemic Act, Regulations).
b. Step 2 (Action): The local authority
issues a binding order under those powers to a doctor.
c. Step 3 (Promise): The central
government announces an insurance scheme for those "requisitioned."
The
Court logically concluded that the insurance scheme was designed precisely for
individuals who were brought into the fight through measures like the NMMC
notice. To argue otherwise would render the scheme’s extension to private
practitioners "requisitioned by States" meaningless in the context of
the emergency that actually unfolded.
4.
The Spirit of the Promise: A Nation's Assurance
The
judgment is imbued with judicial recognition of the national spirit during the
pandemic. It recalls the bravery of healthcare workers—over 1,500 doctors who
died in the first two waves—and the intent behind the PMGKY scheme: "to
assure doctors and health professionals in the front line that the country is
with them."
The
Court refused to let this assurance be whittled down by a narrow, post-hoc
bureaucratic interpretation that ignored the terrifying reality of March 2020.
The Legal Doctrine Established:
"Requisition" in a Crisis
The
Supreme Court established several key principles for interpreting state action
during a national emergency:
1. Substance Over Form: The legal
character of an action is determined by its substance, context, and the powers
under which it is taken, not merely its label or format. A notice issued under
a draconian epidemic law, backed by criminal penalty, has the force of
requisition.
2. Holistic Interpretation: Government
schemes must be interpreted in conjunction with the contemporaneous legal and
factual environment. The PMGKY scheme could not be read in isolation from the
Epidemic Diseases Act and orders issued under it.
3. Rejection of Unrealistic Formalism:
Courts cannot impose procedural formalities (like individual consent forms or
specific posting orders) that were impracticable or impossible during the peak
of a rapidly evolving crisis.
4. Two-Stage Test for Claims: The Court wisely
separated the issues:
a. Stage
1 (Legal Question): Was there a general state of requisition in law? Answer:
Yes.
b. Stage
2 (Factual Inquiry): Did the individual doctor deploy his services pursuant
to this requisition and die from COVID-19 contracted in the line of such duty? This
is a matter of evidence for the claims authorities to verify.
The Court modified the High Court order, declaring that requisition was established, and directed that individual claims (like Dr. Surgade’s widow’s) be reconsidered by the authorities based on evidence of the deceased's actual duties and cause of death.
Implications for Professionals: Key Takeaways
For
Lawyers and Judges:
a. Contextual Interpretation is Paramount:
This judgment is a textbook example of Purposive Interpretation. When dealing
with emergency-era laws and policies, the historical context, the palpable
fear, and the state’s urgent needs are relevant factors for the court.
b. Bridge the Gap Between State Actions: Lawyers must learn to connect disparate government actions (a state law, a municipal order, a central scheme) to build a coherent narrative of state policy and intention.
For
Government and Policymakers:
a. Draft for Clarity, Especially in Crises:
While the Court ruled in favor of the claimant, the litigation itself stemmed
from ambiguous terminology. Future crisis-response schemes must define key
terms like "requisitioned," "drafted," or "frontline
worker" with greater precision, anticipating bureaucratic challenges.
b. Administrative Compassion: The judgment is a rebuke to a claims-processing mindset that prioritizes technical denial over fulfilling the spirit of a welfare promise made in a time of collective suffering.
For
Healthcare Administrators and Insurers:
a. Evidence-Based But Compassionate
Adjudication: The Court did not mandate automatic approval. It requires
claims authorities to properly investigate the factual circumstances of death.
Did the doctor continue seeing patients after the order? Is there a logical
link between his duties and infection? The burden of proof lies with the
claimant, but the standard of proof must be realistic.
b. Recognize the Reality of Private Practice:
In a country with a vast private healthcare sector, the lines between
"routine practice" and "COVID-19 duty" were inherently
blurred during a pandemic affecting the entire population. Treating any patient
was a COVID-19 risk.
Conclusion: A Judgment Anchored in Reality
The
Supreme Court’s ruling in Pradeep Arora is more than a win for a grieving
family. It is a restoration of logic and moral equity to the legal process. It
recognizes that in the spring of 2020, when the state used its most powerful
laws to command doctors to their posts, that command—whether by a specific
circular or a general order to keep clinics open—was a requisition in every
meaningful sense of the word.
The
judgment ensures that the state’s promise of insurance keeps pace with the
breadth of its own emergency powers. It tells us that the law, at its best,
does not get lost in the fine print when confronted with the stark print of
history. For the legal community, it serves as an enduring precedent: when
interpreting the actions of a state fighting for its people’s survival, look at
the battlefield, not just the paperwork.
0 Comments