On 20th May 2020, The High Court of Telangana, in the case of Ganta Jai Kumar v. State of Telangana, comprising of Justice M.S. Ramachandra Rao and Justice K. Lakshman orders no legal basis for excluding private sector participation for treatment of COVID-19 patients and held that the action of the state is thus patently arbitrary and unreasonable and violates Art.21 of the Constitution of India and is unsustainable.
FACTS :
A PIL was filed in the High Court of Telangana by an Indian citizen, to declare the action of the State of Telangana and other respondents in not permitting the “private hospitals” and “diagnostic centers” which are equipped with the necessary equipment and personnel and willing to conduct diagnostic tests for COVID-19 virus and to admit patients for isolation and treatment of COVID-19 virus as arbitrary, illegal and without power. The District Medical and Health Officer, Hyderabad, in his first order, while permitting the private hospitals to deal with COVID-19 cases introduced a prohibition against them from dealing with ordinary elective procedures and surgeries so that the entire attention could be towards treating the COVID-19 patients even by private hospitals. Subsequently by another order, on the same day, the District Medical and Health Officer, Hyderabad canceled the earlier order issued on the same day. The result is that private hospitals were totally prohibited from treating COVID-19 patients
ISSUE :
The issue raised in the particular case was regarding the challenge of prohibition with respect to private hospitals as well as private diagnostic centers /laboratories to admit patients infected from COVID-19.
CONTENTIONS OF PETITIONER:
- The action of respondent in not permitting any private diagnostic institution to conduct screening or diagnostic tests and any private hospital to either take the COVID19 patients for isolation or for treatment for reasons which are not revealed in the above order to the citizens.
- Relies on Art.21 of the Constitution of India and contends that the said article guarantees the Fundamental Right to life and personal liberty which includes the right of a person to choose his own doctor and hospital as per his choice; that under the guise of taking steps to prevent the spread of the pandemic.
- One of the contentions were if some of the patients who can afford wish to take private treatment in private hospitals, the respondents cannot restrict the same, and such conduct would be unreasonable and illogical.
- Apart from lack of hygiene and unsanitary conditions in the Government facilities for COVID-19 patients, the patients are not being allowed to carry cell phones and are not being allowed to communicate with their kith and kin. News items in this regard have also been filed by petitioner.
- Considering it as public interest litigation as the petitioner contended that all citizens should have a right to choose where they can undergo tests and treatment if tested positive for COVID-19, cannot compel them to use only Government-operated facilities, it cannot be said that there is no public interest in the matter. The petitioner is not certainly espousing a cause personal to him.
CONTENTIONS BY THE ADVOCATE GENERAL:
- There is a state of emergency in the State in view of the Covid-19 pandemic and that such emergency justifies the State action.
- As per the contention, there is a medical emergency or a war emergency, anything can be done by the State including arbitrarily restricting the right to health conferred under Art.21 on a citizen of the State. An emergency of any sort is not an excuse to trample on the rights under Art.21 and the Courts have the power to see that the State will act in a fair, just, and reasonable manner even during emergencies. Whether the State has done so or not is judicially reviewable in the light of the law laid down by the Supreme Court.
- Those who cannot afford the private laboratory/private hospital facilities and it can thus the State can conserve it’s financial resources which have been greatly reduced by the lockdown it has imposed for more than 2 months.
JUDGMENT DELIVERED :
The court declared that the:
- orders issued by the Health office regarding certain instructions on treating only emergency cases at notified hospitals in Hyderabad District vide reference 6th cited are hereby canceled with immediate effect.” is violative of Art.14 and Art.21 of the Constitution of India and also the principles of natural justice and is set aside;
- freedom of the citizen of the State to get tested in a laboratory of his choice or get treated in a private hospital of his choice is curtailed by the State without support of any “law”, much less a reasonable, fair and just law. The action of the state is thus patently arbitrary and unreasonable and violates Art.21 of the Constitution of India and is unsustainable.
- After easing of lockdown at some point in time, it is widely expected that infections would increase. Only such hospitals in the private sector who have the capacity for treatment /isolation as per the standard operating procedure/ guidelines prescribed by the ICMR, can be allowed to treat/isolate such patients.
The court further stated the basic principle of administrative law that every action of the State which affects the rights of citizens must be supported by reasons so that a Court, can, while judicially reviewing it, know that there is an application of mind to the issue by the authority concerned.
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
