LexGURUSIMRAN SINGH NARULA versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B C D E F G H 351 GURUSIMRAN SINGH NARULA v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR. Writ Petition (Civil) No. 560 of 2020 NOVEMBER 05, 2020 [ASHOK BHUSHAN, R. SUBHASH REDDY AND M. R. SHAH, JJ.] Disaster Management Act, 2005 – Novel Coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) – Pandemic – A writ petition filed in the public interest u/A. 32 of the Constitution of India seeking direction to ban on spraying of all kinds of disinfectants on human beings, supposedly for protecting the human beings from Covid-19 – The petitioner submitted that although the Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, the respondent no. 1 through its advisory dated 18.4.2020 had stated that spraying of disinfectant on human being is not recommended but Union of India has not taken any step to stop use, advertisement and sale of chemical based disinfection tunnels – Held: When respondent no. 1 has issued advisory that use of disinfectant on human body is not recommended and it has been brought into its notice that despite the said advisory, large number of organizations, public authorities are using disinfectants on human body, it was necessary for the respondent no. 1 to issue necessary directions either to prevent such use or regulate such use as per requirement to protect the health of the people – 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 – Therefore, the respondent no. 1 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 – Further, there shall be similar consideration and directions by the respondents with regard to exposure of human beings to artificial ultraviolet rays. [2020] 12 S.C.R. 351 351 A B C D E F G H 352 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 12 S.C.R. Disposing of the writ petition, the Court HELD : 1. From the pleadings brought on record on behalf of respondent No.1, it is clear that although by the advisory by respondent No.1, spraying of disinfectant on human body is not recommended but respondent No.1 has not taken any further steps in the above context taking any measure either to prevent or regulate the spraying of disinfectant on the human body. [Para 29][367-D-E] 2. The powers and functions of National Executive Committee under Section 10 of the Disaster Management Act, 2005, which specifically empowers the National Executive Committee to give directions regarding measures to be taken by the concerned ministry and departments of the Government, State Governments and State Authorities in response to the threatening situation or disaster. Section 36 of the Act, 2005, expressly enumerates the responsibilities of Ministries and departments of the Government of India. [Paras 30 and 31][367- F-G] 3. When respondent No.1 has issued advisory that use of disinfectant on human body is not recommended and it has been brought into its notice that despite the said advisory, large number of organizations, public authorities are using disinfectants on human body, it was necessary for the respondent No.1 to issue necessary directions either to prevent such use or regulate such use as per requirement to protect the health of the people. 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. [Para 32][369-B-D] 4. This Court has no doubt that the Union and the States are taking all measures to contain the pandemic and all mitigating steps but the facts which have been brought on record in this writ petition indicate that in the present case, something more was required to be done by respondent No.1 apart from issuing advisory that use of disinfectant on human body is not recommended. When public authorities/ organizations were using A B C D E F G H 353 disinfectants both chemical/organic on the human body and there are various studies to the effect that it may be harmful to the health and the body. Some more actions were required to remove the cloud of uncertainty and to regulate the use even if it was to either prevent such use or regulate the use so that health of citiz
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.