The Patna High Court has directed Bihar authorities to re-examine the rejected compensation claims of eight families who lost relatives during the second wave of the pandemic, holding that financial aid under the Bihar Covid-19 Sahayata Yojana 2022 cannot be withheld on mere technicalities.
Delivering the order on September 2, Justice Alok Kumar instructed the state administration to reconsider the applications within four weeks of receiving a certified copy of the judgment and to disburse the statutory ex-gratia payment of Rs 4 lakh to each eligible claimant.
Rejection Over Unauthorized Testing Facility
The ruling followed petitions submitted by eight residents of Patna district—Aneesh Singh, Geeta Devi, Madhuree Devi, Mani Bhushan Singh, Reema Kumari, Vishakhi Devi, Anant Kumar Sharma, and Krishna Murari. Their family members contracted the virus and died between April 20 and May 20, 2021, while undergoing hospital treatment or remaining in home isolation across the Mokama and Maranchi areas.
The claims had faced repeated administrative hurdles. A district-level scrutiny body led by the Patna civil surgeon dismissed the applications on February 3, 2023. Following a review, a three-member state committee formed by the executive director of the State Health Society, Bihar, reaffirmed the rejection on July 18, 2024.
Representing the state, advocate K K Sinha maintained that the decisions followed due verification, explaining that the compensation had been withheld because the diagnostic center in Mokama where the deceased were tested lacked formal state authorization for RT-PCR, rapid antigen (RAT), or TruNat examinations.
Constitutional Mandate In A Welfare State
The court rejected the administration’s stance, emphasizing that the government holds an inescapable constitutional and statutory obligation under Article 21 and the Disaster Management Act, 2005, to protect citizen welfare during severe public health crises. Justice Kumar observed that the Constitution envisions the state not as a passive observer of human hardship, but as an active protector of public dignity and well-being.
The bench noted that the administration had never challenged the authenticity of the diagnostic reports, nor had it contested that the eight individuals died of Covid-19. Furthermore, the petitioners had furnished standard documentation, including medical prescriptions, death certificates, and bank account details. The deaths were also officially recorded under serial numbers 11, 14, 15, 18, 19, 23, 24, and 37 on the Covid-19 fatality register maintained and circulated by the State Health Society itself.
Absence Of Laboratory Accreditation In National Guidelines
Reviewing the legal framework, the high court examined the Supreme Court precedent set in Gaurav Kumar Bansal vs Union of India & Anr, which governs ex-gratia relief under Section 12(iii) of the Disaster Management Act. The bench assessed the corresponding guidelines framed in September 2021 by the Union Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR), and the National Disaster Management Authority (NDMA).
Under these national standards, qualifying deaths include those confirmed by RT-PCR, molecular, or rapid antigen testing, as well as clinical diagnoses made by attending hospital physicians. The norms encompass fatalities occurring within 30 days of testing or clinical confirmation, protracted hospitalizations, certified pandemic-related deaths, and suicides occurring within a month of diagnosis.
Justice Kumar pointed out that neither the central guidelines nor the Supreme Court mandate laboratory accreditation, empanelment, or formal state authorization as eligibility prerequisites. The decisive standard, the court observed, remains the timing and factual confirmation of infection supported by contemporaneous clinical documentation, rather than the regulatory classification of the testing venue.
Precedent On Lack Of Local Infrastructure
The bench drew directly upon its earlier ruling in Sushila Devi & Manoj Kumar vs State of Bihar & Ors, which addressed an identical dispute concerning unapproved diagnostic centers. In that case, the court had noted that the Bihar government had not authorized any testing laboratory in Mokama throughout the pandemic.
The court reiterated that citizens coping with a critical medical emergency during the peak of the outbreak could not reasonably be expected to monitor government portals or travel to distant recognized facilities to obtain authorized tests.
Holding that the lack of laboratory authorization cannot serve as a ground for disqualification when infection and death are undisputed, the court ruled that reading such barriers into the policy would undermine the remedial objectives of the ex-gratia framework.
