1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION (C) NO.560 OF 2020

GURUSIMRAN SINGH NARULA               ... PETITIONERS

VERSUS

UNION OF INDIA & ANR.                 ... RESPONDENTS

J U D G M E N T

ASHOK BHUSHAN,J.

1.This   Writ   petition   filed   in   the   public   interest

under  Article  32  of  the  Constitution   of  India  seeks

direction to forthwith ban on spraying of all kinds of

disinfectants   on   human   beings   which   is   being     done

supposedly for   protecting   the   human   beings   from   the

Novel Coronavirus disease 2019(Covid­19). 

2.The   World   Health   Organisation(WHO)   declared   novel

coronavirus disease, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as

2

Covid­19) as a Pandemic on 11.03.2020. All countries

including India after spread of the pandemic had taken

and are still taking different measures to contain the

disease   and   protect   its   citizens   from   Covid­19.   On

29.03.2020,   Ministry   of   Health   and   Family   Welfare,

Government   of   India,   released   guidelines   on

disinfection of common Public places including Offices.

The   scope   as   contained   in   the   guidelines   is   to   the

following effect: ­

"Scope:   This   document   aims   to   provide

interim   guidance   about   the   environmental

cleaning/decontamination   of   common   public

places   including   offices   in   areas

reporting COVID­19.

Coronavirus Disease 2019(COVID­19) is an

acute   respiratory   disease   caused   by   a

novel Cornavirus (SARS­CoV­2), transmitted

in   most   instances   through   respiratory

droplets,   direct   contact   with   cases   and

also   through   contaminated

surfaces/objects.   Though   the   virus

survives   on   environmental   surfaces   for

varied   period   of   time,   it   gets   easily

inactivated by chemical disinfectants...”

3.On 18.04.2020, Director General of Health Services

(EMR Division), Ministry of Health and Family Welfare,

issued an advisory against spraying of disinfectants on

3

people for Covid­19 arrangements. Even though in the

above advisory, spraying of individuals or groups was

not recommended, several bodies, organizations started

using spraying tunnels to disinfect the human body. The

press release dated 23.4.2020 was issued by National

Capital   Laboratory(Council   for   Scientific   and

Industrial Research) which was joint press release by

CSIR­NCL Pune­ICT Mumbai, stating that the use of mist

based sanitization is expected to provide safeguard to

front­line   health   care   professionals   including

paramedical   staff,   police   and   employees   providing

essential   services.   Other   public   organizations   also

started  using  the  walk  way   spray   tunnels,  and  other

measures   for   disinfecting   humans   at   various   public

places. 

4.This writ petition under Article 32 has been filed

on 05.06.2020 praying for following reliefs: ­

"i. Issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus

or any other appropriate writ, direction

or   order   a   forthwith   ban   on   the   usage,

installation, production, advertisement of

disinfection tunnels involving spraying or

fumigation   of   chemical   disinfectants   for

4

the   purposes   disinfecting   human   being

and/or

ii. Issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus

or any other appropriate writ, direction

or   order   a   forthwith   ban   on   usage,

installation, production, advertisement of

disinfection tunnels involving spraying or

fumigation   of   organic   disinfectants   for

the   purposes   disinfecting   human   beings

and/or

iii.   Issue   a   writ   in   the   nature   of

Mandamus   or   any   other   appropriate   writ,

direction or order a forthwith ban on the

usage,   installation,   production,

advertisement   of   disinfection   tunnels

exposing human beings to ultraviolet rays

for the purposes disinfecting them and/or

iv. To pass such other orders and further

orders as may be deemed necessary on the

facts   and   in   the   circumstances   of   the

case”

5. The petitioner in the writ petition referred to and

relied   the   advisory   dated   18.04.2020   and   has   also

referred to press release dated 23.04.2020 issued by

CSIR­NCL,Pune­ICT,Mumbai,   where   tunnels   for   external

body   surface   sanitization   of   personal   walk   was

recommended. 

6.The petitioner's case in the writ petition is that

5

although   the   Ministry   of   Health   and   Family   Welfare,

Government of India, has not approved the use of any

self   claimed   organic   or   ayurvedic   disinfectant   for

spraying   or   fumigation   purposes   nor   approved   any

chemical   disinfectants   on   human   body   but   lot   of

organizations/public   authorities   are   using   chemical

disinfectants   for   spraying   and   fumigation.   Several

instances in the writ petition of public authorities

installing disinfecting tunnel has been given in the

writ petition. 

7.Publication from World Health Organization has also

been relied where it is clearly stated that spraying

and introducing bleach or other disinfectant into body

will not protect against Covid­19 and can be dangerous.

Quoting World Health Organization, it is pleaded that

the   Ultraviolet   (UV   Lamps)   should   not   be   used   to

disinfect   the   hands   and   other   areas   of   the   skin.

Reference has also been made of advanced disinfectant

tunnel   developed   jointly   by   Indian   Institute   of

Technology,   Kanpur   and   Artificial   Limb   Manufacturing

6

Corporation of India.

8.Articles questioning against the use of disinfectant

tunnels have also been referred to and relied by the

petitioner. Certain materials where different experts

have   recommended   use   of   UV   light   and   disinfectant

tunnel has also been referred to. sIn view of several

discordant   note   expressed   by   certain   experts   and

organizations, the writ petition prayed for directions

as quoted above. 

9.This Court issue notice to respondent Nos. 1­3 on

10.08.2020.   No   notice   having   been   issued   to   the

respondent Nos.4 to 6, they be deleted from the array

of the parties. The respondent No.1 has filed a counter

affidavit   dated   01.09.2020   where   advisory   dated

18.04.2020   as   well   as   minutes   of   meeting   dated

09.06.2020   held   under   the   chairmanship   of   Director

General Health Services, with regard to review on use

of   disinfection   tunnel   using   various   chemicals   and

spraying disinfectants have been brought on the record.

Taking note of the meeting proceeding dated 09.06.200

7

where spraying disinfectant was not recommended by the

minutes,   This   Court   passed   following   order   on

07.09.2020: ­ 

" ORDER  

    A counter affidavit has been filed on

behalf of Union of India. In the counter

affidavit   at   page   40   copy   of   meeting   ­

Annexure   'G'   dated   09.06.2020   has   been

brought on the record, where it has been

decided that spraying disinfectants is not

recommended.   Shri   Tushar   Mehta,   learned

Solicitor   General   submits   that   relevant

directions and circulars shall be issued

to all concerned. 

       As   prayed   by   Shri   Tushar   Mehta,

learned Solicitor General, list after two

weeks.”

10.After the aforesaid order, another affidavit titled

as   'Compliance   affidavit   dated   28.09.2020'   by

respondent No.1 where O.M. dated 23.09.2020 has been

brought   on   the   record   reiterating   that   spraying   of

individuals   or   groups   with   disinfectant   using   any

modality is not recommended and hence, all States/Union

Territories are directed to ensure that such practices

are not implemented in the States/UTs. 

11.An   additional   affidavit   has   also   been   filed   by

8

respondent No.1 with regard to use of Ultraviolet (UV)

rays   to   disinfect/sterilize   edible   items   like   fruits

and vegetables. Petitioner has also filed consolidated

rejoinder   affidavit.   An   intervention   application   has

also   been   filed   by   one   Ideal   Flow   Pvt.   Ltd.   which

claims to be a company which has developed and designed

pressurized steam disinfectant chamber. The applicant

submits that in designed pressurized steam disinfectant

chamber,   natural   oils   are   mixed   in   an   emulsifier

solution. Applicant claims that the product has various

health benefits. Applicant further submitted that there

is   a   major   difference   between   disinfectant   tunnels

spraying   chemical   disinfectant   and   pressurized

disinfection chamber, any blanket ban as sought in the

writ petition may seriously impact the business of the

applicant,   in   light   of   the   major   difference   of   the

applicant's   product   from   that   of   disinfection   tunnel

mentioned in the writ petition.

12.We have heard the petitioner appearing in person,

Shri Tushar Mehta, learned Solicitor General for the

9

respondents and Smt. Anita Shenoy, Senior Advocate for

the intervenor.

13.The petitioner submits that although the Ministry of

Health & Family Welfare, the respondents No.1 through

its advisory dated 18.04.2020 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. The petitioner submits that there is no study

anywhere  in  the  world  by  any   credible  health   agency

which   states   that   human   disinfection   tunnels   are

effective   against   Covid­19   virus.   On   the   contrary,

there   are   sufficient   health   advisories   by   the   WHO,

respondent   No.1   and   other   international   agency   that

tunnels are counter productive and harmful for human

health. There has been no advisory issued by respondent

No.1   which recommends usage of any organic solution

for spraying on human body against Covid­19 pandemic. 

14.The   petitioner   submits   that   in   absence   of   any

recommendation of health authorities, there is a trend

10

across   the   Country   where   people   are   producing   self­

certified   so   called   safe   disinfection   tunnels   with

variety   of   organic   solutions.   The   petitioner   submits

that the concept of “human disinfection” through walk

in   tunnel   is   flawed   and   misconceived   and   be   not

permitted at any cost in light of Right to Health under

Article 21 of the Constitution. 

15.Shri   Tushar   Mehta,   learned   Solicitor   General,

submits that answering respondent No.1 had not issued

any   advisory   for   usage,   installation,   production,

advertisement of disinfection tunnel involving spraying

or   fumigation   of   chemicals/organic   disinfectants   for

the   purpose   of   disinfecting   human   beings.   Learned

Solicitor   General   has   referred   to   advisory   dated

18.04.2020   issued   by   respondent   No.1.   It   is   further

submitted that in the meeting held on 09.06.2020 under

the Chairmanship of Director General Health Services,

review on use of disinfection tunnel was made and it

was   reiterated   that   spraying   disinfectant   is   not

recommended   in   both   health   care   and   non­health   care

11

settings. Shri Mehta submits that the States/UTs have

to implement the guidelines dated 18.04.2020 and the

role of the Government of India is limited to providing

necessary guidelines and financial support. 

16.Learned   counsel   for   the   intervenor   has   submitted

that   the   product   which   is   being   designed   by   the

applicant   does   not   use   any   chemical   as   human

disinfectant rather it uses natural oil which promotes

health. The applicant opposes any blanket ban on the

use of such products for human disinfection. 

17.We have considered the submission of learned counsel

for the parties and perused the record. 

18.The writ petition raises following three questions:­

I)   Whether   spraying   or   fumigation   of   any   kind   of

chemical   disinfectants   on   human   beings   without   the

approval   of   the   relevant   ministry   is   violative   of

Article 21?

12

II) Whether spraying or fumigation of any kind of self­

claimed   organic   disinfectant   on   human   beings   without

the approval of the relevant Ministry is violative of

Article 21?

III)   Whether   exposure   of   human   beings   to   artificial

ultraviolet rays is violative of Article 21?

All the above questions being inter­connected are

being taken together. 

19.Article   21   of   the   Constitution   provides   for

protection of life and personal liberty. The expression

'life'   used   in   Article   21   has   wide   import   and

connotation. Article 21 encompasses a bundle of rights

which have been recognized from time to time by the

legislature of this Country and Courts of this Country

including this Court. Right to life as recognized under

Article 21 is Right to live with dignity.   Right to

health   is   also   recognized   as   an   important   facet   of

Article   21   of   the   Constitution.   We   may   refer   to

pronouncement   of   this   Court   in  Devika   Biswas   versus

13

Union of India and others, (2016) 10 SCC 726,   where

this Court held that Right to Health is an integral

facet   of   Right   guaranteed   under   Article   21   of   the

Constitution. In paragraph 107 of this Court dealing

with Right to Health laid down following: ­

"107.  It   is   well   established   that   the

right   to   life   under   Article   21   of   the

Constitution includes the right to lead a

dignified   and   meaningful   life   and   the

right to health is an integral facet of

this   right.   In   CESC   Ltd.   v.   Subhash

Chandra   Bose   dealing   with   the   right   to

health of workers, it was noted that the

right   to   health   must   be   considered   an

aspect of social justice informed by not

only Article 21 of the Constitution, but

also   the   Directive   Principles   of   State

Policy   and   international   covenants   to

which   India   is   a   party.   Similarly,   the

bare minimum obligations of the State to

ensure   the   preservation   of   the   right   to

life and health were enunciated in Paschim

banga   Khet   Mazdoor   Samity   vs.   State   of

W.B.”

20.In   the   present   case,   Right   to   Health   under

consideration   is   in   wake   of   pandemic   Covid­19.   The

provisions of Disaster Management Act, 2005(hereinafter

referred to as Act, 2005) has been invoked to combat

Covid­19   by   different   authorities   constituted   under

14

Act,   2005.   Covid­19   is   a   notified   disaster   for   the

purposes of the Act, 2005 by the Government of India.  

21.The Act, 2005, is an act for effective management of

disasters   and   matters   connected   therewith   and

incidental   thereto.   Disaster   Management   includes

prevention of danger/threat of a disaster, mitigation

or   reduction   of  risk   of  a  disaster,  preparedness   to

deal   with   the   disaster   and   prompt   response   to   any

threatening disaster situation or disaster etc.. Under

Section   3,   National   Disaster   Management   Authority   is

established   for   the   purposes   of   the   Act.   Section   8

provides   for   the   constitution   of   National   Executive

Committee. Section 10 deals with powers and function of

National   Executive   Committee.   The   National   Executive

Committee   is   to   assist   the   National   Authority   in

discharge of its functions and have the responsibility

for implementing the policies and plans of the National

authority and ensure the compliance of the directions

issued by the Central Government for the purposes of

the Central Government. Sub­Section (2) of Section 10

15

enumerates various powers and functions of the National

Executive Committee. Section 10 which is relevant for

this case is as follows: ­

"10.   Powers   and   functions   of   National

Executive Committee.—

(1) The National Executive Committee shall

assist   the   National   Authority   in   the

discharge   of   its   functions   and   have   the

responsibility   for   implementing   the

policies   and   plans   of   the   National

Authority   and   ensure   the   compliance   of

directions   issued   by   the   Central

Government   for   the   purpose   of   disaster

management in the country. 

 (2) Without prejudice to the generality

of the provisions contained in sub­section

(1), the National Executive Committee may—

(a) act as the coordinating and monitoring

body for disaster management;

(b)   prepare   the   National   Plan   to   be

approved by the National Authority; 

(c)   coordinate   and   monitor   the

implementation of the National Policy;

(d)   lay   down   guidelines   for   preparing

disaster   management   plans   by   different

Ministries   or   Departments   of   the

Government   of   India   and   the   State

Authorities; 

(e) provide necessary technical assistance

to   the   State   Governments   and   the   State

Authorities   for   preparing   their   disaster

management   plans   in   accordance   with   the

guidelines   laid   down   by   the   National

16

Authority;

(f)   monitor   the   implementation   of   the

National   Plan   and   the   plans   prepared   by

the   Ministries   or   Departments   of   the

Government of India;

(g)   monitor   the   implementation   of   the

guidelines   laid   down   by   the   National

Authority for integrating of measures for

prevention of disasters and mitigation by

the   Ministries   or   Departments   in   their

development plans and projects; 

(h)   monitor,   coordinate   and   give

directions   regarding   the   mitigation   and

preparedness   measures   to   be   taken   by

different   Ministries   or   Departments   and

agencies of the Government;

(i)   evaluate   the   preparedness   at   all

governmental   levels   for   the   purpose   of

responding   to   any   threatening   disaster

situation or disaster and give directions,

where   necessary,   for   enhancing   such

preparedness;

(j)   plan   and   coordinate   specialised

training programme for disaster management

for   different   levels   of   officers,

employees and voluntary rescue workers; 

(k)   coordinate   response   in   the   event   of

any   threatening   disaster   situation   or

disaster;

(l)   lay   down   guidelines   for,   or   give

directions to, the concerned Ministries or

Departments   of   the   Government   of   India,

the   State   Governments   and   the   State

Authorities regarding measures to be taken

17

by   them   in   response   to   any   threatening

disaster situation or disaster; 

(m)   require   any   department   or   agency   of

the   Government   to   make   available   to   the

National   Authority   or   State   Authorities

such   men   or   material   resources   as   are

available   with   it   for   the   purposes   of

emergency response, rescue and relief;

(n)   advise,   assist   and   coordinate   the

activities   of   the   Ministries   or

Departments   of   the   Government   of   India,

State Authorities, statutory bodies, other

governmental   or   non­governmental

organisations   and   others   engaged   in

disaster management;

(o) provide necessary technical assistance

or   give   advice   to   the   State   Authorities

and District Authorities for carrying out

their functions under this Act;

(p)   promote   general   education   and

awareness   in   relation   to   disaster

management; and 

(q)   perform   such   other   functions   as   the

National   Authority   may   require   it   to

perform. ”

22.The   powers   under   sub­section   (2)   of   Section   10

clauses (i) and (l) of  Act, 2005, have been delegated

to Secretary, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare,

Government of India, by notification dated 11.03.2020.

The Notification dated 11.03.2020 is as follows: ­

18

"ORDER

In exercise of the powers conferred under

Section 69 of the Disaster Management Act,

2005, Union home Secretary being Chairman

of   the   National   Executive   Committee(NEC)

hereby delegates its power under clauses

(i) and (l) of sub­section (2) of Section

10 of the Disaster Management Act, 2005 to

Secretary, Ministry of Health and Family

Welfare,   Government   of   India   to   enhance

the preparedness and containment of novel

Coronavirus(COVID­19)   and   the   other

ancillary matters connected thereto. This

order shall be deemed to have come into

effect from 17

th

 January, 2020.

(Sanjeev Kumar Jindal)

Joint Secretary to the 

Government of India”

23.Thus   it   is   the   Secretary,   Ministry   of   Health   and

Family Welfare, who had to lay down the guidelines or

give   directions   to   the   concerned   Ministries   or

Departments   of   Government   of   India,   the   State

Governments and State Authorities regarding measures to

be   taken   by   them   in   response   to   any   disrupting

situation or disaster. The Pandemic has threatened the

health   of   entire   citizenry   of   the   country   and   all

facets relating to pandemic Covid­19, its prevention,

mitigation and cure are to be dealt with and taken care

19

of   authorities   empowered   with   different   duties   and

functions under different statutes including Disaster

Management Act, 2005. 

24.We may first refer to the advisory dated 18.04.2020

which was issued against spraying of disinfectant on

people   for   Covid­19   management.   The   advisory   dated

18.04.2020 states: ­

"Advisory against spraying of disinfectant

on people for COVID­19 management 

   Ministry of Health & Family Welfare has

received   many   queries   regarding   the

efficacy   (if   any)   of   use   disinfectants

such   as   Sodium   hypochlorite   spray   used

over   the   individuals   to   disinfect   them.

The strategy seems to have gained of lot

of   media   attention   and   is   also   being

reportedly used at local levels in certain

districts/local bodies. 

Purpose of the document 

To   examine   the   merit   of   using

disinfectants as spray over human body to

disinfect   them   from   COVID­19   and   to

provide appropriate advisory 

Disinfectants  are   chemicals   that   destroy

disease causing pathogens or other harmful

microorganisms.   It   refers   to   substances

applied   on   inanimate   objects   owing   to

their strong chemical properties. 

20

Chemical disinfectants are recommended for

cleaning   and   disinfection   only   of

frequently touched areas/surfaces by those

who   are   suspected   or   confirmed   to   have

COVID­19. Precautionary measures are to be

adopted   while   using   disinfectants   for

cleaning   –   like   wearing   gloves   during

disinfection. 

In   view   of   the   above,   the   following

advisory is issued:

• Spraying of individuals or groups is NOT

recommended   under   any   circumstances.

Spraying   an   individual   or   group   with

chemical   disinfectants   is   physically   and

psychologically harmful. 

• Even if a person is potentially exposed

with   the   COVID­19   virus,   spraying   the

external part of the body does not kill

the virus that has entered your body. Also

there is no scientific evidence to suggest

that   they   are   effective   even   in

disinfecting the outer clothing/body in an

effective manner. 

•  Spraying of chlorine on individuals can

lead to irritation of eyes and skin and

potentially   gastrointestinal   effects   such

as   nausea   and   vomiting.   Inhalation   of

sodium hypochlorite can lead to irritation

of mucous membranes to the nose, throat,

respiratory   tract   and   may   also   cause

bronchospasm. 

• Additionally use of such measures may in

fact lead to a false sense of disinfection

&   safety   and   actually   hamper   public

observance   to   hand   washing   and   social

distancing measures. ”

21

25.Even   though   the   above   advisory   was   issued   by

Directorate General of Health Services not recommending

spraying   of   disinfectant   on   people   for   Covid­19

management   but   several   contrary   opinion   have   been

expressed by other bodies and organisations. In this

context, reference has been made to the joint Press

Release   dated   23.04.2020   by   NCL   (CSIR).   The   Press

Release dated 23.04.2020 states: ­

"Publication and Science Communication

Unit 

Press release  April 23, 2020

 Safe concentration of disinfectant in

walk through spray tunnels and their

scientific design 

Joint Press Release: CSIR­NCL Pune and ICT

Mumbai 

   CSIR–National Chemical Laboratory (CSIR­

NCL),   Pune   evaluated   various

concentrations   of   sodium   hypochlorite   to

find effective chemical disinfectants for

the mist sanitization system. 

   The use of mist­based sanitization is

expected   to   provide   safeguards   to

frontline   healthcare   professionals,

including   paramedic   staff,   police,   and

employees   providing   essential   services.

22

These people are more likely to get the

infection   and   unknowingly   spread   arising

from various sources. A lot of advisories

have   appeared   against   the   use   of   such

tunnels from various agencies, which does

not have any scientific basis. 

   Efficacy   of   sodium   hypochlorite,   also

known   as   hypo   or   bleach,   ranging   from

0.02%   to   0.5%   weight   concentration   was

studied on personnel walking through mist

tunnel   unit,   besides   antibacterial

activity   against   standard   microorganisms

before   and   after   exposure   in   the   walk

through. Results indicated that 0.02% to

0.05% weight concentration did not show an

adverse   effect   on   normal   skin   flora   and

yet destroyed the standard microbes. Thus,

we   recommend   using   0.02%   ­0.05   wt.   %

sodium hypochlorite solution (200 to 500

ppm)   for   external   body   surface

sanitization of personnel walk through the

mist tunnel by following standard safety

precautions”

26.The   petitioner   has   also   referred   to   in   the   writ

petition various articles where different experts have

recommended   for   effective   sanitization   amid   Covid­19

pandemic by disinfection tunnels, different studies for

and   against     disinfectment   of   human   body   has   been

referred to and relied in the writ petition. 

27.After Notice was issued in the petition, the counter

23

affidavit   was   filed.   In   the   Counter   affidavit

respondent No.1 has also brought on record the minutes

of  the   meeting  dated  09.06.2020  chaired  by  Director

General Health Services where review was made on the

use of disinfection tunnels. Observations as recorded

in the minutes are as follows: ­

"1.Use of disinfection tunnel

The matter of spraying of disinfectant

on   people   for   COVID­19   management   was

discussed   in   the   Joint   Monitoring   Group

and an advisory in this regard has been

issued by MOHFW/DGHS, EMR Division which

is   available   on   the   website   of   the

ministry. It clearly states the following:

"Spraying of individuals or groups is NOT

recommended   under   any   circumstances.

Spraying   an   individual   or   group   with

chemical   disinfectants   physically   and

psychologically harmful.

•Even   if   a   person   is   potentially

exposed   with   the   Covid­19   virus,

spraying the external part of the body

does   not   kill   the   virus   that   has

entered   your   body.   Also   there  is   no

scientific   evidence   to   suggest   that

they   are   effective   even   in

disinfecting   the   outer   clothing/body

in an effective manner. 

•Additionally use of such measures may

in   fact   lead   to   a   false   sense   of

disinfection   and   safety   and   actually

hamper   public   observance   to   hand

24

washing   and   social   distancing

measures. 

It   is   reiterated   that   spraying   of

individuals with disinfectants (such as

tunnels,   cabinets,   chambers,   etc.)   is

not   recommended.   This   could   be

physically   and   psychologically   harmful

and   would   not   reduce   an   infected

person's   ability   to   spread   the   virus

through   droplets   or   contact.   Moreover,

spraying   individuals   with   chlorine   and

other   toxic   chemicals   could   result   in

eye   and   skin   irritation,   bronchospasm

due to inhalation, and gastrointestinal

effects such as nausea and vomiting. 

2. Use of Chemicals

As per the advisory by MOHFW/DGHS, EMR

Division:

Chemical   disinfectants   are   recommended

for   cleaning   and   disinfection   only   of

frequently   touched   areas/surfaces   by

those who are suspected or confirmed to

have   COVID­19.   Precautionary   measures

are   to   be   adopted   while   using

disinfectants   for   cleaning   –   like

wearing gloves during disinfection. 

Spraying of chlorine on individuals can

lead to irritation of eyes and skin and

potentially   gastrointestinal   effects

such as nausea and vomiting. Inhalation

of   sodium   hypochlorite   can   lead   to

irritation   of   mucous   membranes   to   the

nose, throat, respiratory tract and may

also cause bronchospasm. 

The chemicals such as freshly prepared

25

1%   sodium   hypochlorite   or   70%   ethanol

etc., are to be used as indicated, to

disinfect   inanimate   surfaces   using

mops/wipes   for   the   recommended   contact

time. 

3. Spraying disinfectants:

Spraying   disinfectants   is   not

recommended in both health care and non

health care settings. 

In indoor spaces, routine application of

disinfectants to environmental surfaces

by   spraying   or   fogging   (also   known   as

fumigation   or   misting)   is   not

recommended   for   COVID­19   as   the

disinfectants   may   not   be   effective   in

removing organic material and may miss

surfaces   shielded   by   objects,   folded

fabrics   or   surfaces   with   intricate

designs.   If   disinfectants   are   to   be

applied,   this   should   be   done   with   a

cloth or wipe that has been soaked in

disinfectant. 

Spraying   or   fumigation   of   outdoor

spaces, such as streets or marketplaces,

is   also   not   recommended   to   kill   the

COVID­19   virus   or   other   pathogens

because   disinfectant   is   inactivated   by

dirt and debris and it is not feasible

to manually clean and remove all organic

matter   from   such   spaces.   Moreover,

spraying   porous   surfaces,   such   as

sidewalks and unpaved walkways, would be

even less effective. Even in the absence

of organic matter, chemical spraying is

unlikely   to   adequately   cover   all

surfaces   for   the   duration   of   the

required   contact   time   needed   to

26

inactivate   pathogens.   Furthermore,

streets and sidewalks are not considered

to be reservoirs of infection for COVID­

19. In addition, spraying disinfectants,

even outdoors, can be harmful for human

health. 

The committee referred to the document

of   the   World   Health   Organisation   on

'Cleaning   and   disinfection   of

environmental surfaces in the context of

COVID­19.'

28.It is further relevant to notice that in  paragraph

13   of   the   affidavit   dated   01.09.2020,   following

statement has also been made:

"13.   It   is   most   respectfully   submitted

that   as   public   health   and   hospitals   are

State subject, it is for the States/Union

Territories   to   implement   the   guidelines

issued   by   the   Ministry   of   Health   and

Family Welfare and the role of Government

of India is limited to providing necessary

guidance and financial support.

.......   ....   ...."

29.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

27

taking any measure either to prevent or regulate the

spraying of disinfectant on the human body. 

30.We   have   noted   above   the   powers   and   functions   of

National Executive Committee under Section 10 of the

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. 

31.Section 36 of the Act, 2005, expressly enumerates

the responsibilities  of Ministries and departments of

the Government of India. Section 36 which is relevant

for the case is as follows: ­

"36.   Responsibilities   of   Ministries   or

Departments   of   Government   of   India. —It

shall   be   the   responsibility   of   every

Ministry or Department of the Government

of India to— 

(a) take measures necessary for prevention

of disasters, mitigation, preparedness and

capacity building in accordance with the

guidelines   laid   down   by   the   National

28

Authority; 

(b) integrate into its development plans

and projects, the measures for prevention

or mitigation of disasters in accordance

with   the   guidelines   laid   down   by   the

National Authority; 

(c)   respond   effectively   and   promptly   to

any   threatening   disaster   situation   or

disaster in accordance with the guidelines

of   the   National   Authority   or   the

directions   of   the   National   Executive

Committee in this behalf; 

(d) review the enactments administered by

it, its policies, rules and regulations,

with   a   view   to   incorporate   therein   the

provisions   necessary   for   prevention   of

disasters, mitigation or preparedness; 

(e)   allocate   funds   for   measures   for

prevention   of   disaster,   mitigation,

capacity­building and preparedness; 

(f)   provide   assistance   to   the   National

Authority and State Governments for—    

(i)   drawing   up   mitigation,

preparedness   and   response   plans,

capacity­building,   data   collection

and   identification   and   training   of

personnel   in   relation   to   disaster

management; 

(ii)   carrying   out   rescue   and   relief

operations in the affected area; 

(iii)   assessing   the   damage   from   any

disaster; 

(iv) carrying out rehabilitation and

29

reconstruction; 

(g) make available its resources to the

National   Executive   Committee   or   a   State

Executive   Committee   for   the   purposes   of

responding promptly and effectively to any

threatening   disaster   situation   or

disaster, including measures for— 

(i) providing emergency communication

in a vulnerable or affected area; 

(ii)   transporting   personnel   and

relief goods to and from the affected

area; 

(iii)   providing   evacuation,   rescue,

temporary shelter or other immediate

relief; 

(iv)   setting   up   temporary   bridges,

jetties and landing places; 

(v)   providing,   drinking   water,

essential   provisions,   health   care,

and services in an affected area;

(h)   take   such   other   actions   as   it   may

consider   necessary   for   disaster

management. ”

32.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

30

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 sub­serve the objects of the Act. 

33.We   have   extracted   paragraph   13   of   the   Counter

Affidavit where it has been stated by the respondent

No.1 that public health and hospitals, it is for the

States/UTs to implement guidelines by the Ministry of

Health   and   Family   Welfare   and   role   of   the   Central

Government is limited to provide necessary guidelines

and financial support. 

34.No exception can be taken to the above pleading but

the provisions of the Act, 2005, confer certain more

responsibilities   and   duties   on   the   respondent   No.1

apart   from   issuance   of   guidelines   and   providing

31

financial   support.   The   Act,   2005,   is   special

legislation   containing   self­contained   provisions   to

deal with a disaster. The Pandemic being a disaster

within the meaning of Act, 2005, has to be dealt with

sternly and effectively. 

35.We have 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

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 citizens is amply protected. 

32

36.When a statute confer power on authority and that

power is to be exercised for the benefit of the people

in general, the power is coupled with the duty. This

Court   in  Commissioner   of   Police   versus   Gordhandas

Bhanji,   AIR   1952   SC   16,  speaking   through   Vivian

Bose,J., had laid down the off­quoted preposition in

paragraph 28: ­

"28.   The   discretion   vested   in   the

Commissioner   of   Police   under   R.250   has

been conferred upon him for public reasons

involving   the   convenience,   safety,

morality   and   welfare   of   the   public   at

large.   An   enabling   power   of   this   kind

conferred for public reasons and for the

public benefit is, in our opinion, coupled

with   a   duty   to   exercise   it   when   the

circumstances   so   demand.   It   is   a   duty

which cannot be shirked or shelved nor it

be   evaded,   performance   of   it   can   be

compelled under S.45.”

37.This Court again in   L.Hirday Narain versus income

Tax Officer, Bareilly, (1970) 2 SCC 355,  reiterated the

same principle in following words: ­

"13....if   a   statute   invests   a   public

officer with authority to do an act in a

specified   set   of   circumstances,   it   is

33

imperative   upon   him   to   exercise   his

authority in a manner appropriate to the

case when a party interested and having a

right to apply moves in that behalf and

circumstances   for   exercise   of   authority

are shown to exist. Even if the words used

in   the   statute   are   prima   facie   enabling

the Courts will readily infer a duty to

exercise power which is invested in aid of

enforcement of a right­public or private­

of a citizen.”

38.Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer had elaborately dealt the

above   principle   in  Municipal   Council,   Ratlam   versus

Shri Vardichan and others, (1980) 4 SCC 162.  The above

case was  a  case where Municipal Council Ratlam was

entrusted with certain duties to the public which was

sought to be enforced by the residents through Section

133 Cr.P.C. where Magistrate issued certain directions

to   the   Municipal   Corporation   which   came   to   be

challenged in this Court.  Justice Krishna Iyer quoting

Benjamin   Bisraiely,  in   paragraph   9   of   the   judgment

stated: ­

"9. ...”All power is a trust – that we are

accountable for its exercise – that, from

the   people,   and   for   the   people,   all

springs, and all must exist.” Discretion

becomes a duty when the beneficiary brings

34

home   the   circumstances   for   its   benign

exercise.” 

39.With   regard   to   judicial   process,   important

observations were made by this Court in the above case

that affirmative action taken in the judicial process

is to make remedy effective failing which the right

becomes   sterile.   In   paragraph   16   of   the   judgment,

following observations have been made: ­

"16...The nature of the judicial process

is   not   purely   adjudicatory   nor   is   it

functionally   that   of   an   umpire   only.

Affirmative   action   to   make   the   remedy

effective is of the essence of the right

which otherwise becomes sterile...”

40.Justice Krishna Iyer also laid down that improvement

of public health is paramount principle of governance.

In paragraph 24, following has been observed: ­

"24.   ...The   State   will   realise   that

Article 47 makes it a paramount principle

of governance that steps are taken 'for

the   improvement   of   public   health   as

amongst its primary duties'...”

41.An   additional   affidavit   has   been   filed   by   the

35

respondent   No.1   where   details   regarding   use   of

Ultraviolet UV rays disinfectant/sterilize edible food

items like fruits and vegetables has been quoted. In

additional   affidavit,   rules   have   been   relied   namely

'Atomic Energy (Radiation Processing of Food and Allied

Product)   Rules,2012',   which   rules   require   that   no

person shall operate the facility without obtaining a

license   for radiation processing of food and allied

products under the Rules. Facility has been defined as

radiation   processing   facility   for   food   and   allied

product.   There   are   hosts   of   regulatory   measures   of

radiation for use of UV rays with regard to food and

other articles. We are of the view that for spraying

disinfectant on human body, fumigation or use of UV

rays against the human body, there has to be regulatory

regime when respondent No.1 itself is of the view that

such use is not recommended. The respondent No.1 has

wide powers and responsibilities under Act, 2005, which

could have been utilized to remedy the situation. In

event, use of disinfectant on human body is to cause

adverse effect on the health of the people, there has

36

to  be  immediate  remedial  action  and  respondent  No.1

cannot   stop   only   by   saying   that   such   use   is   not

recommended. 

42.In view of the foregoing discussion, we are of the

view that ends of justice be served in disposing the

writ petition by issuing the following directions:­

i)   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.

or

ii)   There   shall   be   similar   consideration   and

directions by the respondents as indicated   above

with regard to exposure of human being to artificial

ultraviolet rays.

37

iii) Looking to the health concern of the people in

general,   the   aforesaid   exercise   be   completed   by

respondent No.1 within a period of one month.

....................J.

  (Ashok Bhushan) 

....................J.

  (R.Subhash Reddy) 

....................J.

(M.R. Shah)      

NEW DELHI,

NOVEMBER 05, 2020.