Invocation Of COVID-19 Regulations Constituted Requisitioning Of Medical Services; PMGKY-Package Extends To All Requisitioned Doctors: Supreme Court

The Apex Court was hearing a challenge to the judgment of the Bombay High Court, which had dismissed the claim of the widow of a deceased medical practitioner in a writ petition seeking insurance benefits under the PMGKY scheme. The High Court had concluded that the deceased doctor’s services were not “requisitioned” and therefore his family was not entitled to coverage.

A Bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice R. Mahadevan, upon examining the material placed on record, observed: “We have no hesitation in concluding that invocation of laws and Regulations were intended to leave no stone unturned in requisitioning the doctors and the insurance scheme was equally intended to assure doctors and health professionals in the front line that the country is with them. In this view of the matter, we are not inclined to take the view that there was no requisitioning of the doctors and medical professionals”.

For the appellants, Dr Pradeep Arora appeared in person, Aishwarya Bhati, ASG, represented the respondents, while Akshat Shrivastava, AOR, assisted the Court as Amicus Curiae.

Background

The deceased, Dr B. S. Surgade, was a private medical practitioner in Navi Mumbai. During the initial phase of the COVID-19 outbreak, the Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation issued a notice directing him to keep his clinic open under the powers invoked through the Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897 and the Maharashtra COVID-19 Regulations. A further communication by the Director of Medical Education and Research requested the services of registered medical practitioners, including Ayurved doctors, for COVID-19 duties.

Dr Surgade tested positive for COVID-19 and passed away. His widow applied for benefits under the PMGKY insurance scheme. The claim was rejected on the grounds that (i) he was a private practitioner, (ii) his dispensary was not a COVID-designated facility, and (iii) his services were not requisitioned. The High Court accepted this reasoning and dismissed the writ petition.

The present appeal was confined to the interpretation of the PMGKY policy and the meaning of “requisitioning” under the statutory framework invoked during the pandemic.

Court’s Observation

The Supreme Court conducted a detailed analysis of the statutory and executive measures enforced during the pandemic, beginning with the invocation of the Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897 and the issuance of the Maharashtra Prevention and Containment of COVID-19 Regulations, 2020. These Regulations empowered the Collector or Municipal Commissioner to impose containment measures and “requisition the services of any other person” as required.

The Court also highlighted that “…it is not difficult to conceive the situation, in which individual letter of appointment or requisitioning would not have been possible and that exactly the reason for invoking the Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897 and the Regulation 2020 for implementing immediate measures”.

The Court noted that Regulation 11 stipulated penal consequences for non-compliance, underscoring the binding nature of the directives issued under these powers. It then examined the context in which these Regulations were invoked, emphasising: “Circumstances that prevailed at the dawn of 2020 required immediate implementation of certain compelling measures… This included requisitioning and drafting of doctors and other healthcare professionals as an emergent measure, as many as possible and as early as the State can.”

Turning to the NMMC notice, the Court held that it must be understood in light of the extraordinary situation. The notice explicitly invoked statutory powers and directed the doctor to keep his dispensary open, warning of prosecution under Section 188 IPC. The Court rejected the High Court’s narrow reading of the notice, observing: “There cannot be any doubt about the compelling situation in which the Governments and their instrumentalities requisitioned services of doctors and other health professionals”, while stating that “…we have no hesitation in holding that there was a ‘requisition’ of doctors and other medical professionals.”

The Court also referred to the contemporaneous executive actions, such as the press release of 26.03.2020, the PMGKY order dated 28.03.2020, the explanatory letter dated 03.04.2020, and the FAQs, which showed that the insurance scheme contemplated coverage for private doctors whose services were requisitioned by the State.

“The truth and reality of requisitioning is also evident from the decisions of the government, made almost at the same time. In the same month, i.e., in March 2020, the Finance Ministry issued the press release dated 26.03.2020, and this was followed by the declaration of the PMGKY-Package on 28.03.2020. The FAQs and the clarificatory letter dated 03.04.2020 issued thereafter also prove that large number of doctors and healthcare professionals were requisitioned, and this compelling measure is not confined to Government employees, but also extended to private doctors and hospitals. The insurance cover under PMGKY-Package was extended to all those who were requisitioned by law and the executive actions under the compelling circumstances”, the Apex Court Concluded.

These materials collectively, the Court held, demonstrated that the State had undertaken a broad-based mobilisation of healthcare providers, and the PMGKY scheme was designed as an assurance to all such frontline workers.

Conclusion

Partially modifying the High Court’s judgment, the Supreme Court held that there was a requisition of the services of doctors during the pandemic, as evident from the statutory framework, executive actions, and documents issued under the Epidemic Diseases Act and the 2020 Regulations.

The Court, however, confined itself to interpreting the policy and refrained from fact-finding in the individual claim, leaving that determination to the competent authorities, clarifying that claims under the PMGKY insurance scheme must now be assessed on evidence establishing that the deceased doctor lost his life while performing COVID-19-related duties.

The appeal was accordingly disposed of.

Cause Title: Pradeep Arora & Ors. v. Director, Health Department, Govt. of Maharashtra & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1420)

Appearances

Appellants: Dr Pradeep Arora, in person.

Respondents: Tushar Mehta, SG (NP); Aishwarya Bhati, ASG (arguing counsel); Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR; Advocates Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Shrirang B. Varma, Bharat Bagla, and Others

Click here to read/download Judgment