A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

The writ petition examined the legality and constitutional permissibility of spraying or fumigating chemical or organic disinfectants on human beings and exposing individuals to artificial ultraviolet rays as a preventive response to the Covid-19 pandemic. Filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, the petition asserted that such practices violated the right to life and health under Article 21. The petitioner relied upon advisories issued by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare and international guidance, particularly from the World Health Organization, which cautioned against human disinfection through tunnels and sprays. Despite such advisories, several public authorities and organisations continued deploying disinfection tunnels, creating regulatory ambiguity and health risks.

The Supreme Court analysed the Disaster Management Act, 2005, particularly Sections 10 and 36, to determine whether the Union Government merely possessed discretionary powers or was under a positive statutory obligation to act. The Court reaffirmed that statutory powers conferred for public welfare are powers coupled with duties. It held that issuance of advisories alone was insufficient when evidence showed continued harmful practices across the country.

While the Court refrained from imposing an immediate blanket ban, it directed the Union Government to actively consider and issue binding directions regulating or prohibiting such practices, including exposure to ultraviolet radiation. The judgment reinforces the jurisprudence that public health protection during disasters requires affirmative executive action, and that regulatory silence in the face of known harm amounts to constitutional failure.

Keywords: Right to Health, Article 21, Disaster Management Act 2005, Disinfection Tunnels, Covid-19 Pandemic, Public Health Regulation

B) CASE DETAILS

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT

The judgment arose during the unprecedented public health emergency caused by the Covid-19 pandemic, which had been formally declared a pandemic by the World Health Organization on 11 March 2020. In India, the pandemic was notified as a disaster under the Disaster Management Act, 2005, thereby activating a special statutory framework aimed at prevention, mitigation, preparedness, and response.

Amid widespread fear and uncertainty, several governmental and private bodies began deploying disinfection tunnels that sprayed chemical or organic substances on individuals, claiming preventive efficacy against Covid-19. These measures gained visibility despite the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare issuing an advisory on 18 April 2020 explicitly stating that spraying disinfectants on humans was not recommended and could be harmful. Conflicting press releases, including one by CSIR-NCL Pune and ICT Mumbai, further contributed to public confusion.

The petitioner, acting in public interest, contended that the continued use and promotion of such tunnels amounted to a direct threat to public health and violated the right to life with dignity. The petition highlighted the absence of any scientific approval for such methods and emphasised the failure of the Union Government to translate advisory warnings into enforceable regulation.

The case therefore presented a crucial constitutional question regarding the extent of executive duty during disasters and whether mere advisories satisfy statutory and constitutional obligations when citizens’ health is at stake.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

The petitioner approached the Supreme Court under Article 32 seeking a complete ban on the installation, production, advertisement, and use of disinfection tunnels involving chemical or organic sprays, as well as exposure to artificial ultraviolet rays. The petition emphasised that no chemical or organic disinfectant had been approved by the competent health authorities for application on human bodies.

Despite the advisory dated 18 April 2020 issued by the Director General of Health Services, multiple public authorities, local administrations, and private entities continued deploying walk-through tunnels at offices, markets, and public institutions. The petitioner relied on WHO publications clearly stating that spraying disinfectants on people neither prevents Covid-19 infection nor kills viruses inside the human body and may cause skin, eye, respiratory, and gastrointestinal harm.

The Union Government, in its counter affidavit, acknowledged that spraying disinfectants on individuals was not recommended. It referred to minutes of a 9 June 2020 meeting chaired by the Director General of Health Services, reiterating that such practices were physically and psychologically harmful. However, the Government maintained that public health is a State subject and its role was limited to issuing guidelines and providing support.

An intervenor company claimed that its product used natural oils and steam, arguing against a blanket ban. This further highlighted the regulatory vacuum and the need for clear statutory action.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

i. Whether spraying or fumigation of chemical disinfectants on human beings without governmental approval violates Article 21?
ii. Whether self-claimed organic disinfectants sprayed on humans infringe the right to health under Article 21?
iii. Whether exposure of human beings to artificial ultraviolet rays amounts to a violation of Article 21?

F) PETITIONER / APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

The counsels for Petitioner submitted that the concept of human disinfection through tunnels was scientifically flawed and constitutionally impermissible. It was argued that the right to health, as an integral component of Article 21, stood violated by unregulated exposure to chemicals and radiation. The petitioner relied upon WHO advisories and the 18 April 2020 advisory of the Ministry itself, which acknowledged the dangers of such practices.

It was further contended that mere issuance of advisories without enforcement allowed dangerous practices to flourish, creating a false sense of safety and undermining scientifically proven measures such as hand hygiene and social distancing.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

The counsels for Respondent submitted that the Union Government had never approved the use of disinfection tunnels and had clearly advised against them. It was argued that implementation lay with the States and Union Territories, as public health fell under the State List. The Union maintained that its statutory role was limited to issuing guidelines under the Disaster Management Act, 2005.

The intervenor argued that its product differed materially from chemical tunnels and that a blanket prohibition would harm legitimate business interests.

H) RELATED LEGAL PROVISIONS

i. Article 21, Constitution of India
ii. Article 32, Constitution of India
iii. Section 10, Disaster Management Act, 2005
iv. Section 36, Disaster Management Act, 2005

I) JUDGEMENT 

The Supreme Court held that although advisories had been issued, no concrete regulatory action followed despite evidence of widespread harmful practices. The Court emphasised that Sections 10 and 36 of the Disaster Management Act, 2005 impose not merely enabling powers but affirmative duties upon authorities during disasters.

The Court relied on Devika Biswas v. Union of India (2016) 10 SCC 726 to reiterate that the right to health is inseparable from Article 21. It further applied the doctrine that power coupled with duty mandates action when circumstances demand, citing Commissioner of Police v. Gordhandas Bhanji, L. Hirday Narain v. ITO, and Municipal Council, Ratlam v. Vardichan.

The Court found that regulatory inaction created uncertainty and exposed citizens to avoidable health risks. It therefore directed the Union Government to consider and issue binding directions regulating or banning such practices within one month.

a) RATIO DECIDENDI

Statutory powers conferred under the Disaster Management Act, 2005 are inseparably linked with a constitutional duty to protect public health. Issuance of advisories alone does not satisfy this obligation when harmful practices persist. Failure to act violates the right to health under Article 21.

b) OBITER DICTA

The Court observed that public health protection is a paramount principle of governance, echoing Article 47 and the need for proactive regulation during health emergencies.

c) GUIDELINES

i. The Union Government must actively exercise powers under the Disaster Management Act, 2005.
ii. Clear directions must be issued regarding disinfection tunnels and ultraviolet exposure.
iii. Public health considerations must override administrative convenience.

J) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

The judgment reinforces the principle that constitutional rights demand affirmative governance, particularly during disasters. It clarifies that decentralisation of public health responsibilities does not absolve the Union of its statutory duties under special legislation. The decision strengthens Indian public health jurisprudence by linking executive accountability directly with Article 21 and disaster governance.

K) REFERENCES

a) Important Cases Referred

i. Devika Biswas v. Union of India, (2016) 10 SCC 726
ii. Commissioner of Police v. Gordhandas Bhanji, AIR 1952 SC 16; [1952] SCR 135
iii. L. Hirday Narain v. ITO, (1970) 2 SCC 355; [1971] 1 SCR 683
iv. Municipal Council, Ratlam v. Vardichan, (1980) 4 SCC 162; [1981] 1 SCR 97

b) Important Statutes Referred

i. Constitution of India
ii. Disaster Management Act, 2005