* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 27th May, 2014.
+ W.P.(C) 3262/2014
CENTRE FOR HUMAN RIGHTS ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Gaurav Kumar Bansal, Adv.
Versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Proxy Counsel for Mr. Jatan Singh,
Adv. for UOI.
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.
1. This petition filed as a Public Interest Litigation (PIL), seeks:
(i) a direction to the respondents Director General of Health Services, Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, Government of India and to the Kalawati Saran Children's Hospital, Connaught Place, New Delhi to clearly define a policy regarding the treatment of children ensuring their healthy care and upbringing and ensuring effective implementation of the same;
(ii) issuance of a direction to the respondents to file a status report regarding the conditions in the Kalawati Saran Children's Hospital; W.P.(C) No.3262/2014 Page 1 of 7
(iii) issuance of a direction for constitution of an independent committee to inspect the conditions in Kalawati Saran Children's Hospital and to give specific suggestions for the effective improvement of the said hospital.
2. It is the case of the petitioner:
(a) that as per the response to the query made under the Right to Information Act, 2005, 10,081 children died in Kalawati Saran Children's Hospital between the years 2008-2012;
(b) that nine out of eleven ventilators are out of order;
(c) that the hygienic condition in the hospital is not satisfactory;(d) that the supply of medicines is not proper.
3. We have enquired from the counsel for the petitioner as to how many children were admitted for treatment or otherwise treated in Kalawati Saran Children's Hospital between the years 2008-2012.
4. The counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner had made no enquiry to the said effect and has no knowledge thereof.
5. Without knowing as to how many children were brought to Kalawati Saran Children's Hospital for treatment at the relevant time, it cannot be W.P.(C) No.3262/2014 Page 2 of 7 known as to what percentage the death of 10,081 children bears to the total children admitted/treated. Though undoubtedly the number of 10,081 does indeed appear to be high and our heart bleeds at such a large number of young lives being extinguished before they had a chance bloom, but we cannot at the same time set in motion the process of the Court on such half or less baked petitions. A petitioner in a PIL though undoubtedly subserving a laudable task of flagging issues of public importance which those affected, are personally able to do but is not absolved of the duty otherwise on a litigant approaching the Court to make out a case for setting the legal process into motion. We are constrained to observe that inspite of our frequent lament in this regard (see Association of Metro Commuters Vs. Delhi Metro Rail Corporation MANU/DE/7202/2011), the persons/advocates filing petitions in public interest want the Court to start a roving and fishing enquiry, on merely their views as to the functioning of a particular Department or Institution of the Government. The petitioner herein falls in the same category. A person who brings a lis before the Court, even in public interest, is required to, unless the facts speak for themselves, satisfy the Court as to the illegality in the actions of the State/public body affecting the public interest. A petitioner, even in a Public W.P.(C) No.3262/2014 Page 3 of 7 Interest Litigation cannot seek commencement of a roving and fishing inquiry. It was so held in Narmada Bachao Andolan Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2011) 7 SCC 639. A litigant who is unwilling to collect/gather facts, which in today's transparent regime are available on the asking, cannot be allowed to waste the time of the Court. An alarm is sought to be raised on high number of deaths in a public hospital, without even making any queries. It cannot be lost sight of that the persons manning and managing such Departments/Institutions can be demoralized, if inspite of their best efforts and commendable service to the Departments/Institutions, without knowing all the details, allegations are raised against them and enquiry is made, ridiculing their service.
6. We may also mention that there are no specific averments or particulars in the petition of the malfunctioning if any of Kalawati Saran Children's Hospital against which the petition is directed. No suggestions also for improvements have been made. The petitioner has not even bothered to find out the Charter of the Hospital or the Rules and Regulations of management/functioning thereof and it is not thus the case that anything which the hospital or its management is required under the same to do, is not being done. Without pleading all these, no case for entertaining the W.P.(C) No.3262/2014 Page 4 of 7 petition or for issuing any writ can be said to have been made out.
7. We have enquired from the counsel for the petitioner as to what policy exists or what policy can be made and what are to be its parameters. Not only is the petition at sea, the counsel also is unable to answer. He generally states that some time bound schedule should be laid down for repair of the hospital equipment. The counsel has however not even found out, whether any such parameters already exist. The Division Bench of this Court in Union of India Vs. Sh. S. Srinivasa Rao MANU/DE/7428/2011 was concerned with a direction for providing Central Government Health Scheme (CGHS) benefits to all retired employees of National Seeds Corporation Limited. The contention inter alia was that health is an integral part of right to live. Relying on J.K. Sawhney Vs. Punjab National Bank 169 (2010) DLT 743, it was held that those not covered by CGHS could not be given benefit thereof and the question as to who should be entitled to the benefit under the Scheme is a matter of Policy and in which the Courts cannot intervene. Further relying on State of Punjab Vs. Ram Lubhaya Bagga (1998) 4 SCC 117 it was held that no State or Country can have unlimited resources and provision of facilities cannot be unlimited and that the Courts would not interfere with any opinion formed by the Government W.P.(C) No.3262/2014 Page 5 of 7 and that though it is the constitutional obligation of the State under Article 21 of the Constitution to safeguard the life of every person and such right is a right to lead healthy life but no law mandates that every citizen is entitled to free medical treatment without any limitation on the amount that can be claimed as reimbursement. Yet further relying on Dal Chand Vashisht Vs. GNCTD (2008) VI AD (Delhi) 44 it was held that CGHS was contributory in nature and structured on the same lines as the insurance schemes, where the burden is shared by all the contributories collectively for the benefit of those who may need to draw from the common pool thus created and the benefit thereof could not be extended to others. Reliance was also placed on Confederation of Ex-Servicemen Associations v UOI (2006) 8 SCC 399 in which the claim of ex-defense personnel to full and free medical aid for themselves and their families as a fundamental right was negated.
8. The present petition has been filed without studying the legal position and which lends us to believe that the same is more in the nature of personal interest as a public interest activist rather than any desire to toil for the benefit of the public.
9. The petition is thus dismissed. We are this time around only cautioning the petitioner to henceforth not file petitions in public interest W.P.(C) No.3262/2014 Page 6 of 7 without backing the same with any hard work and are thus not burdening the petitioner with costs.
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.
CHIEF JUSTICE MAY 27, 2014 bs W.P.(C) No.3262/2014 Page 7 of 7