In a striking development that bridges political promise and judicial enforcement, the Arvind Kejriwal government’s much-publicised COVID-era compensation scheme has come under sharp judicial scrutiny. What was once announced with solemn assurance has now been enforced not by the architects of the policy, but through intervention by the Delhi High Court—placing the financial burden on the current administration. At the centre of this controversy lies the functioning of the AAP GoM, whose repeated rejection of claims has now been deemed legally untenable.
The origins of the dispute trace back to May 2020, when the Delhi government, under Kejriwal, introduced Cabinet Decision No. 2835. The announcement was unequivocal: any frontline worker who lost their life while serving during the COVID-19 pandemic would be honoured as a “martyr,” and their families would receive ₹1 crore as compensation. Teachers, police personnel, civil defence volunteers, and sanitation workers were explicitly included. The intent was clear—recognition and relief for those who risked everything during an unprecedented public health crisis. However, the implementation, overseen by the AAP GoM, would later diverge significantly from this promise.
In a series of recent rulings, including Prem Sheela Kumari v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi, Smt. Ram Dulari & Ors. v. GNCTD, and Narender Kumar v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi, the High Court has consistently struck down the reasoning adopted by the AAP GoM. The Court found that the Group of Ministers had created an artificial distinction between “COVID duty” and “routine duty”—a distinction not grounded in the original Cabinet decision. By doing so, the AAP GoM effectively excluded numerous claimants who had undeniably been exposed to COVID-19 while performing government-assigned responsibilities.
The most recent case underscores the gravity of the issue. The widow of Dr. Raja Ram Singh, a Vice Principal at a government school in Sangam Vihar, had her compensation claim rejected on the grounds that supervising a Hunger Relief Centre constituted “routine duty.” Dr. Singh had contracted COVID-19 while overseeing the centre, which was established under the government’s own relief initiative. The High Court categorically rejected this reasoning, calling it arbitrary and contrary to the spirit of the scheme. It directed the Delhi government to pay ₹1 crore to the bereaved family, thereby affirming that such duties were indeed part of pandemic response efforts.
Legal experts associated with these cases have been unequivocal in their criticism of the AAP GoM’s approach. Lead counsel Adv Prafulla highlighted the circular logic employed in rejecting claims: the government deployed individuals to critical pandemic roles, only to later deny that those roles qualified for compensation. He argued that such reasoning defeats the very purpose of a welfare scheme. According to him, once the state recognises certain categories of workers as eligible, it cannot later retreat into narrow interpretations that exclude them.
The AAP GoM’s handling of claims, as revealed through these judgments, suggests a broader pattern. Advocate Abhishek Kumar, who was also involved in the litigation, pointed out that the rejections were not isolated decisions but indicative of a systemic approach. Diverse professions—a DTC driver, a sanitation worker, and a school principal—received identical rejections based on the same flawed logic. This uniformity, he argued, points not to careful adjudication but to a policy of denial embedded within the functioning of the AAP GoM.
What makes the situation particularly significant is the shift in responsibility. While the scheme was conceptualised and announced by the previous administration, the enforcement of its provisions now falls on the current government. The High Court’s orders effectively compel the state to honour commitments that were publicly made but administratively sidestepped. This raises important questions about continuity in governance and accountability across political transitions.
Beyond the legal and administrative dimensions, the issue carries profound human implications. Each rejected claim represents a family that lost a loved one during one of the most challenging periods in recent history. For many, the promise of ₹1 crore was not merely financial support but a form of recognition—an acknowledgment that their sacrifice mattered. The repeated interventions by the judiciary suggest that such recognition was, in many cases, unjustly withheld by the AAP GoM.
The rulings also set a precedent for how welfare schemes should be interpreted. Courts have emphasised that such schemes must be read broadly, in line with their intended purpose, rather than narrowly through technical definitions. This principle has far-reaching implications, particularly in contexts where governments design relief measures during emergencies. The message is clear: once a promise is made, it cannot be diluted through administrative reinterpretation.
As more families become aware of these judgments, it is likely that additional claims will surface. The question that now looms large is how many eligible beneficiaries were denied compensation by the AAP GoM and have yet to seek legal recourse. The High Court’s consistent stance provides a pathway for redress, but it also underscores the gaps that existed in the scheme’s implementation.
Ultimately, the episode serves as a reminder of the gap that can emerge between political declarations and administrative action. The AAP GoM, entrusted with executing a welfare promise, instead became the focal point of its denial. With judicial intervention now correcting that course, the focus shifts to ensuring that no rightful claimant is left behind—and that future policies are implemented with the integrity they are announced with.
