Can Disinfection Tunnels Be Used on Humans? Supreme Court Issues Directions

Introduction

The Supreme Court of India recently addressed the controversial issue of disinfection tunnels used for sanitizing humans amid the COVID-19 pandemic. This judgment arose from a writ petition filed by Gurusimran Singh Narula, seeking a ban on the use of such tunnels, citing health risks and the lack of scientific backing for their efficacy. The Court's decision underscores the importance of public health regulations during a pandemic and the responsibilities of government authorities in safeguarding citizens.

Case Background

The writ petition was filed under Article 32 of the Constitution, seeking directions to ban the spraying of disinfectants on humans, which had become a common practice in various public places during the COVID-19 pandemic. The petitioner highlighted that despite advisories from the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare against such practices, many organizations continued to implement disinfection tunnels, raising serious health concerns.

The World Health Organization (WHO) had declared COVID-19 a pandemic on March 11, 2020, prompting various countries, including India, to adopt measures to contain the virus. On April 18, 2020, the Director General of Health Services issued an advisory against spraying disinfectants on individuals, yet the practice persisted, leading to the filing of this writ petition.

What The Lower Authorities Held

The Ministry of Health and Family Welfare had issued guidelines stating that spraying disinfectants on individuals was not recommended. The advisory emphasized that such practices could be physically and psychologically harmful and would not effectively kill the virus that may have already entered the body. Despite these warnings, the use of disinfection tunnels continued, prompting the petitioner to seek judicial intervention.

The Union of India, in its counter affidavit, reiterated that no advisory had been issued to permit the use of disinfection tunnels and that the responsibility for implementing health guidelines lay with the State Governments. The petitioner argued that the lack of action from the Union to prevent the use of these tunnels was a violation of the right to health under Article 21 of the Constitution.

The Court's Reasoning

The Supreme Court, while deliberating on the matter, recognized the interconnectedness of the issues raised in the petition. It framed three key questions: whether the spraying of disinfectants on humans without approval violated Article 21, whether the use of self-claimed organic disinfectants was similarly violative, and whether exposure to ultraviolet rays for disinfection purposes was permissible.

The Court emphasized that Article 21 encompasses the right to health, which is integral to the right to life. It referred to previous judgments affirming that the right to health is a fundamental aspect of living with dignity. The Court noted that the ongoing pandemic necessitated a robust response from the government to protect public health.

The Disaster Management Act, 2005 was cited as a crucial framework for managing health crises. The Act empowers authorities to take necessary measures to prevent and mitigate disasters, including public health emergencies. The Court highlighted that the Union and State Governments had a duty to ensure the health and safety of citizens, especially during a pandemic.

Statutory Interpretation

The Court interpreted the provisions of the Disaster Management Act, particularly Sections 10 and 36, which outline the responsibilities of government authorities in disaster management. It noted that the Act not only empowers but also imposes a duty on authorities to act in the best interest of public health. The Court found that the Union's failure to regulate the use of disinfection tunnels, despite clear advisories against them, constituted a neglect of this duty.

Constitutional or Policy Context

The judgment is significant in the context of public health policy and the government's role in safeguarding citizens during health emergencies. The Court's emphasis on the right to health under Article 21 reinforces the need for regulatory frameworks that prioritize public safety over unverified practices. The ruling serves as a reminder that government authorities must take proactive measures to protect public health, especially in times of crisis.

Why This Judgment Matters

This ruling is pivotal for legal practice as it clarifies the responsibilities of government authorities in managing public health during emergencies. It establishes that the use of disinfection tunnels without proper health guidelines is not permissible and underscores the importance of adhering to scientific advisories. The judgment also highlights the need for a regulatory framework to prevent harmful practices that could jeopardize public health.

Final Outcome

The Supreme Court directed the Union of India to consider issuing necessary regulations regarding the use of disinfection tunnels and the exposure of humans to ultraviolet rays. The Court mandated that these considerations be completed within one month, emphasizing the urgency of protecting public health in light of the ongoing pandemic.

Case Details

• Case Title: Gurusimran Singh Narula vs Union of India & Anr.
• Citation: 2020 INSC 635
• Court: IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
• Bench: Justice Ashok Bhushan, Justice R. Subhash Reddy, Justice M.R. Shah
• Date of Judgment: 2020-11-05