Beneficial Clarificatory Notifications Apply Retrospectively; Inconclusive Postmortem Reports Cannot Defeat Substantiated Snakebite Compensation Claims

On 23.08.2019, Smt. Raj Kumari (petitioner’s wife) died of a snake bite while working in an agricultural field.

A General Diary entry and inquest report corroborated the cause of death as snake bite; however, the postmortem report stated the cause of death "could not be ascertained," leading to the preservation of the viscera.

The petitioner’s claim for ex gratia payment of ₹4,00,000 under Government Notification dated 02.08.2018 was rejected by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate (SDM) because the postmortem report was inconclusive.

A subsequent rejection on 28.05.2022 stated that a clarifying Government Order (G.O.) dated 08.07.2021—which waived the requirement for a viscera report—do not apply retrospectively to a 2019 death.

1. Whether the subsequent Government Order dated 08.07.2021 is clarificatory/declaratory in nature and can be applied retrospectively to deaths occurring after the 02.08.2018 notification.

2. Whether an inconclusive postmortem report can override consistent eyewitness testimony and contemporaneous official records in claims under a beneficial welfare scheme.

The Court applied the principle that "declaratory" or "clarificatory" statutes/notifications are intended to remove doubts or supply omissions and are generally retrospective in operation.

It relied on *WPIL Ltd. Ghaziabad v. Commissioner of Central Excise* (2005) and *CCE v. Wood Craft Products Ltd.* (1995) to establish that clarificatory notifications make explicit what was already implicit.

The Court also invoked the doctrine of *contemporanea expositio*, holding that records created near the time of an event (GD entries, inquest reports) carry significant weight when medical evidence is inconclusive.

Furthermore, it cited the "consider jurisprudence" discouraged in *Mahendra Prasad Agarwal v. Arvind Kumar Singh* (2026), emphasizing that justified legal rights must be granted relief immediately by the High Court rather than through perpetual remands.

The Court reasoned that the 2018 notification established the right to compensation for snake bite deaths, while the 2021 G.O. was merely a procedural instruction issued after the State realized that insistence on viscera reports was causing technical delays.

Since the 2021 G.O. did not create a "new right" but settled the modality of evidence, it must be read into the 2018 notification retrospectively.

The Court found the SDM's rejection "arbitrary" because the medical report did not *contradict* the snake bite theory but was merely silent; in such cases, the consistent oral and documentary evidence (Lekhpal report and GD entry) must prevail over hyper-technical medical omissions.

The Court determined that since the facts were undisputed and the law was clear, remitting the matter back to the lower authorities would be counterproductive to the spirit of a welfare scheme.

It held that the G.O. dated 08.07.2021 is clarificatory and retrospective, applying to all deaths covered under the 2018 notification.

The Court directed the District Magistrate, Jalaun, to accord the benefit of ₹4,00,000 compensation to the petitioner within six weeks, emphasizing that Constitutional remedies must be simple, effective, and efficient.