Centre For Human Rights vs Union Of India & Ors.
2014 Latest Caselaw 2723 Del

*      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;

(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

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

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

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

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

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