Ranjiv Ranjan vs Union Of India Through Additional ...
2026 Latest Caselaw 1945 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Ranjiv Ranjan vs Union Of India Through Additional ... on 16 March, 2026

Author: Deepak Roshan

Bench: Deepak Roshan

  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                 W.P. (PIL) No. 4271 of 2019
Ranjiv Ranjan, S/o Late Barho Prasad, Age-39 years, R/o Sangharsh
House No.2 Yoddha Nagar, Khatanga, Near Tiwari Petrol Pump, P.O.
Sugnu, P.S.Khelgaon, Dist.-Ranchi-835103.
                                                       ...    Petitioner
                          Versus
1. Union of India through Additional Principal Secretary to PM, PMO
    Office, South Block, Raisina Hill, PO Nirman Bhawan, PS
    Parliament Street, New Delhi- 110011.
2. Mr. Ambuj Sharma S/o not known to petitioner/ Under Secretary
    Public, PMO Office, through PMO Office, South Block, Raisina
    Hill, PO- Nirman Bhawan, PS- Parliament Street, New Delhi
    110011.
3. Mr. Parveen Kumar S/o not known to petitioner/ Under Secretary
    RTI, PMO Office, through PMO Office, South Block, Raisina Hill,
    PO- Nirman Bhawan, PS- Parliament Street, New Delhi-110011.
4. Mr. Amreek Singh S/o not known to petitioner/ Dy. Secretary RTI,
    PMO Office, through PMO Office, South Block, Raisina Hill, PO-
    Nirman Bhawan, PS- Parliament Street, New Delhi-110011.
5. State of Jharkhand through Principal Secretary to Chief Minister,
    CMO, 1st Floor, Project Building, PO Ranchi University, PS-
    Gonda, Ranchi- 834008.
6. Mr. Sunil Kumar Barnwal S/o not known to petitioner/Secretary to
    CM Jharkhand, through Chief Minister Jharkhand, CMO 1st Floor,
    Project Building, PO- Ranchi University, PS- Gonda, Ranchi
    834008.
7. Chief Secretary, Govt. Of Jharkhand, Secretariat Office, 1st Floor,
    Project Building, PO- Dhurwa, PS- Dhurwa, Ranchi- 834001.
8. Principal Secretary Health & Family Welfare, Department of Health
    & Family Welfare, Government of Jharkhand, Nepal House,
    Doranda, PO- Doranda, PS- Doranda, Ranchi-834002.
9. Mr. Rai Mahimapat Ray, S/o Not known to petitioner / Deputy
    Commissioner, Ranchi, Smaharanalya Building, DC Block,
    Kutchery road, PO- GPO, PS- Kotwali, Ranchi-834001.
10. Ms. Anie Rinku Kujur D/o not known to petitioner / Magistrate
    Sadar Ranchi, Smaharanalya Building, DC Block, Kutchery Road,
    PO GPO, PS Kotwali, Ranchi-834001.
11. Dr. Bijay Bihari Prasad S/o not known to petitioner /Civil Surgeon,
    Ranchi, Sadar Hospital Campus, Purulia Road, PO- GPO, PS-
    Lower Bazaar, Ranchi- 834001.

                            Page 1 of 19
 12. Dr. Vivek Kashyap S/o not known to petitioner/ Medical
    Superintendent RIMS, Ranchi, RIMS, Bariatu, PO- Bariatu, PS
    Bariatu, Ranchi- 834009.
13. Dr. Amar Kumar Singh S/o wot known to petitioner / Registrar
    Cum Secretary, The Jharkhand Council of Medical Registration,
    C/o R P S Hospital, Bariatu Road, PO- Bariatu, PS- Bariatu, Ranchi
    834009.
14. Director/Centre Head, Medanta Hospital, National Highway no. 33,
    PO Irba, PS Ormanjhi, Ranchi- 835217.         ...   Respondents
                             ---------
CORAM:           HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
             HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN
                             ---------
For the Petitioner           : Party-In-Person
For the State                : Mr. Ashok Kumar, Addl. A.G.-IV
For the RIMS                 : Dr. Ashok Kumar Singh, Advocate
For Resp. No.4               : Mr. Ramit Satender, Advocate
                               Ms. Neelam Kumari, Advocate
                       ---------
Reserved on: 28.01.2026               Pronounced on:16 /03/2026
Per Deepak Roshan, J.

1. Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties.

2. The present writ petition has been filed in purported public

interest, seeking the following reliefs:-

(i) For issuance of Writ(s)/order(s)/direction(s) and particularly a writ

in the nature of mandamus commanding and direction upon the respondents

and especially respondent Civil Surgeon Ranchi, to ensure strict compliance

of the Clinical Establishments Act, 2010 and take immediate and strict

action as per law for non-fulfillment of provisions of the said act.

(ii) For issuance of Writ(s)/order(s)/direction(s) and particularly a writ

in the nature of Mandamus commanding upon the respondents and

especially respondent Civil Surgeon Ranchi to take-action upon the report

submitted by Magistrate Sadar Ranchi with respect to the death of the

petitioner's father on 15/10/2017, on act of sheer negligence on the part of

entire management, doctors and nurses of Medanta Hospital Ranchi.

(iii) For issuance of Writ(s)/order(s)/direction(s) and particularly a writ

in the nature of mandamus commanding upon the respondents to

immediately and forthwith holding enquiry in respect to ignore the

complaints of bonafide citizen with respect to legalities been committed by

respondent authority.

(iv) For issuance of Writ(s)/order(s)/direction(s) and particularly a writ

in the nature of mandamus commanding upon the respondents to hold an

enquiry in respect to illegal and fraudulent committing cyber-crime and

misusing the petitioner's email ID to close the RTI filed in PMO Office.

(v) For issuance of Writ(s)/order(s)/direction(s) and particularly a writ

in the nature of mandamus commanding and direction upon the respondents

to ensure that all the Clinical Establishments in the State of Jharkhand are

directed to provide immediately copies of all documents to the patient's

attendants/representative on discharge to avoid any foul play.

3. This petition has been filed in the backdrop of the fact that the

petitioner's father was suffering from Parkinson's disease (Stage III-

IV) and was undergoing treatment for the same in Bhubaneswar,

Odisha. On 05.10.2017, the petitioner's father suffered injuries

following a fall at his residence in Ranchi. He was initially taken to the

Rajendra Institute of Medical Sciences (RIMS), Ranchi, at

approximately 8:00 a.m., where he received primary treatment by way

of a Diazepam injection. However, it is the petitioner's case that until

9:45 a.m., the medical staff at RIMS, Ranchi, failed to provide adequate

care, specifically neglecting to dress his wounds or provide necessary

medical services. Aggrieved by the perceived negligence and

dissatisfied with the services at RIMS, the petitioner shifted his father

to Medanta Hospital, Ranchi, at approximately 10:10 a.m. on the same

day.

4. Furthermore, the petitioner has pleaded that on 06.10.2017, being

dissatisfied with the treatment offered at Medanta, Ranchi, he requested

the hospital to discharge his father to facilitate a transfer to another

medical facility for treatment. Accordingly, the petitioner's father was

discharged from Medanta Hospital, Ranchi, at approximately 05:00

p.m. on the same day, following the intervention of the Head of the

Hospital, Dr. Sharad Agarwal.

5. Subsequently, the petitioner has further pleaded that he took his

father home, however, on 09.10.2017, when the patient ceased taking

food, the petitioner consulted Dr. S.S. Jena of Care Hospital,

Bhubaneswar, under whose observation the petitioner's father had been

undergoing treatment. Upon such consultation, the doctor advised the

petitioner to once again admit his father to a hospital for further medical

care.

6. Thereafter, the petitioner has detailed the events occurring

between 10.10.2017 and 15.10.2017, during which time he consulted

several doctors and visited various medical facilities. Specifically, the

petitioner's father was readmitted to Medanta Hospital on 10.10.2017,

where further medical treatment was administered. Ultimately, the

petitioner has pleaded that his father passed away on 15.10.2017 in the

same hospital itself.

7. Advancing his grievances, the petitioner has filed complaints

with various authorities, including the police, alleging medical

negligence on the part of several hospitals and doctors. Finally, the

petitioner, claiming to have secured no relief from these agencies, has

instituted the present petition in purported "public interest."

8. Presumably, as one of the principal issues raised by the petitioner

pertained to the non-implementation of the Clinical Establishments

(Registration and Regulation) Act, 2010, the present matter was

categorized and treated as a "Public Interest Litigation."

9. As such, the reliefs under prayer Clauses (ii) and (iv) cannot be

said to be appropriate reliefs in a Public Interest Litigation. These

reliefs are entirely personal to the petitioner and, therefore, we do not

propose to deal in detail with the arguments concerning those reliefs.

Nevertheless, we note that the consideration of relief in terms of prayer

Clause (ii) would involve investigation into seriously disputed

questions of fact. Furthermore, we note that pursuant to the petitioner's

complaint about medical negligence, a Medical Board was constituted

by the Medical Superintendent, RIMS, Ranchi, vide communication

No. 2114 dated 01.09.2018. The said Medical Board comprised experts

and Heads of the Departments from the fields of Urology, Medicine,

Neurosurgery, and Surgery.

10. The Medical Board submitted a report dated 08.11.2018

observing, inter alia, the following:-

"............ at the time of admission of late Barho Prasad, he was not

in a good condition. Report showed features of septicemia and renal

dysfunction. Additionally, he had upper G.I. bleeding which

compounded pre-existing co-morbidities of old operated Sub Dural

haematoma with hypertension, parkinsonism and seizure disorder.

As per records, proper treatment has been given along with

necessary investigations done time to time and treated accordingly

as per standard protocols."

11. Therefore, considering that the issue of alleged medical

negligence would involve an investigation into seriously disputed

questions of fact and in view of the above-referred report of the

Medical Board dated 08.11.2018, we decline relief in terms of prayer

Clause (ii) of this petition. However, we clarify that this will not, in any

manner, preclude the petitioner from filing appropriate proceedings

before the appropriate forum for pursuing his grievance, should the

petitioner wish to do so. The observations in this order are in no manner

intended to preclude the petitioner from pursuing his grievance before

the appropriate forum and establishing his case regarding medical

negligence, a claim for compensation, or other ancillary reliefs.

12. Since the petitioner has been pursuing this petition since

16.08.2019, it will be open to the petitioner to seek exclusion of the

period between the date of institution of this petition and its disposal for

the purposes of limitation. This is, of course, subject to any valid

defenses that the respondents may have, not only on the merits but also

on the issue of limitation.

13. Insofar as the relief under Clause (iv) is concerned, we note that

it will not be possible for us to issue a writ of mandamus commanding

the respondents to hold an inquiry in respect of the alleged "illegal and

fraudulent committing of cybercrime and misusing the petitioner's

email ID to close the RTI filed in the PMO Office." This is because,

within the scope of the present Public Interest Litigation, it is not

feasible for this Court to investigate such individual allegations or

conclude whether a cybercrime was indeed committed by misusing the

petitioner's email ID or otherwise.

14. Apart from this, as this remains a private grievance, any inquiry

into such matters would involve the investigation of disputed questions

of fact. Therefore, we decline to grant relief in terms of prayer Clause

(iv) of the petition. However, we clarify that the refusal to grant relief

in terms of prayer Clause (iv) will not preclude the petitioner from

availing ordinary remedies, as opposed to the extraordinary remedy of

invoking this Court's Writ or Public Interest jurisdiction, which may

include filing complaints before the jurisdictional magistrate or

approaching the authorities under the Information Technology Act,

2000.

15. Thus, while we decline the reliefs sought under prayer Clauses

(ii) and (iv) of this petition, we do so with the clarification that such

denial shall not affect the petitioner's right to resort to alternate

remedies available under the law. Furthermore, all rival contentions on

the merits and facts of the matter are left open for adjudication before

the appropriate forum.

16. As regards the non-implementation of the 2010 Act, we note that

this Court has treated the petitioner's grievance as one falling within the

realm of "public interest." From time to time, several orders were

passed by Coordinate Benches of this Court requiring the State and

other authorities to report on the status of compliance. While the State

and other authorities have filed affidavits in this petition, upon perusal

of the same, we are not entirely satisfied with the current status of

compliance.

17. The 2010 Act is a central legislation which was made applicable,

in the first instance, to the States of Arunachal Pradesh, Himachal

Pradesh, Mizoram, Sikkim, and the Union Territories. The Act provides

that it shall apply to such other States which adopt the same by way of a

resolution passed in that behalf under Clause (1) of Article 252 of the

Constitution.

18. In this context, it is a matter of record that the State Government

adopted the Clinical Establishments Act, 2010, in February 2012.

Following this adoption, in exercise of the powers conferred by Section

51 of the 2010 Act, the State Government framed the Jharkhand State

Clinical Establishments (Registration and Regulation) Rules, 2013,

which were subsequently notified in May 2013. These Rules, enacted to

provide better provisions for medical healthcare and regulate clinical

establishments, extend to the entirety of the State and are applicable to

all clinical establishments within the State of Jharkhand.

19. The Statement of Object and reasons for the 2010 Act, reads as

follows:-

"At present, the supervision and regulation of the quality of services provided by the health care delivery system to the people by both public and private sectors has largely remained a contentious and therefore, unresolved issue. The current structure of the health care delivery system does not provide enough incentives for improvement in efficiency. The private sector health care delivery system in India has remained largely unregulated and uncontrolled. Problems range from inadequate and inappropriate treatment, excessive use of higher technologies, and wasting of scarce resources to serious problems of medical malpractice and negligence.

2. Despite many State Legislatures having enacted laws for regulating health care providers, the general perception is that current regulatory process for health care providers in India is inadequate or not responsive to ensure health care services of acceptable quality and prevent negligence. Concerns about how to improve health care quality have continued to be frequently raised by the general public and a wide variety of stakeholders, including Government, professional associations, private providers, agencies financing health care, National Human Rights Commission and also by judiciary.

3. Accordingly, a need has long been felt for a central legislation for ensuring uniform standards of facilities and services by the clinical establishments throughout the State where the Legislative Assemblies have passed resolutions under article 252 of the Constitution and the Union territories and the States which may adopt the legislation by such resolutions.

4. The salient features of the proposed legislation, inter alia, are as follows:--

(i) the proposed legislation provides for the constitution of a National Council consisting of representatives of the Dental Council of India, the Nursing Council of India, the Pharmacy Council of India, the Indian Medicines representing the Ayurveda, Siddha, Unani and Homoeopathy systems, the Indian Medical Associations, the Bureau of Indian Standards, the Zonal Councils set up under the States Reorganisation Act, 1956, the North Eastern Council, etc.;

(ii) the function of the National Council shall be to determine the standards for clinical establishments, classify the clinical establishment into different categories, develop the minimum standards and their periodic review, compile, maintain and update a national register of clinical establishments, perform any other function determined by the Central Government, from time to time;

(iii) the concerned State Government shall designate the Director of Health Services or any other officer subordinate to him as the Registrar of clinical establishments. The State Registrar of clinical establishments shall compile and update the State register of clinical establishments and further send the same in digital format for updating the national register;

(iv) the concerned State Government shall, by notification, designate the District Health Officer or the Chief Medical Officer as district registering authority for registration of clinical establishments;

(v) no person shall carry on a clinical establishment unless it has been registered in accordance with the provisions of the proposed Bill. The legislation would not apply to the clinical establishments of the Armed Forces;

(vi) it is proposed that clinical establishments already in existence may be allowed for provisional registration to carry out their business. There shall be no prior enquiry for provisional registration. But the Authority shall have power to make enquiry in accordance with such rules as may be prescribed;

(vii) the clinical establishment having provisional registration shall fulfil the standards which may be notified for the purpose. The provisional certificate shall not be granted or renewed beyond a period of three years from the date of notification of standards;

(viii) any clinical establishment may apply for permanent registration in such form and shall pay such fee as may be prescribed by the State Government. A detailed procedure for permanent registration is being provided in the proposed legislation;

(ix) the authority shall have power to cancel the registration of the clinical establishment which fails to comply with the conditions prescribed by the Central Government. The authority shall have power to inspect a registered clinical establishment. Any person aggrieved by an order of the registering authority shall prefer an appeal to the State Government;

(x) there shall be register of clinical establishments at the district level, State level and the National level;

(xi) if any person contravenes any provisions of the proposed legislation or any rules made thereunder, he shall be punished with fine. The maximum penalty being provided is rupees five lakh.

5. Legislation in respect of "Public health and sanitation, hospitals and dispensaries" are relatable to Entry 6 of List II-State List in the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution and Parliament has no power to make a law in the State (apart from the provisions of articles 249, 250 and 252 of the Constitution) under article 252 of the Constitution where the legislatures of two or more States pass resolutions in pursuance of article 252 of the Constitution empowering Parliament to pass the necessary legislation on the subject, a Bill may be introduced in Parliament. The legislatures of the States of Arunachal Pradesh, Himachal Pradesh, Mizoram and Sikkim have passed such resolutions. The Bill is intended to give effect to the resolutions passed by the legislatures of the aforesaid States and to make also provisions in respect to Union territories."

20. Section 2(c) of the said act, defines "clinical establishment" and

the same reads as follows:-

"(c) "clinical establishment" means--

(i) a hospital, maternity home, nursing home, dispensary, clinic, sanatorium or an institution by whatever name called that offers services, facilities requiring diagnosis, treatment or care for

illness, injury, deformity, abnormality or pregnancy in any recognised system of medicine established and administered or maintained by any person or body of persons, whether incorporated or not; or

(ii) a place established as an independent entity or part of an establishment referred to in sub-clause (i), in connection with the diagnosis or treatment of diseases where pathological, bacteriological, genetic, radiological, chemical, biological investigations or other diagnostic or investigative services with the aid of laboratory or other medical equipment, are usually carried on, established and administered or maintained by any person or body of persons, whether incorporated or not, and shall include a clinical establishment owned, controlled or managed by--

(a) the Government or a department of the Government;

(b) a trust, whether public or private;

(c) a corporation (including a society) registered under a Central, Provincial or State Act, whether or not owned by the Government;

(d) a local authority; and

(e) a single doctor, but does not include the clinical establishments owned, controlled or managed by the Armed Forces.

Explanation.--For the purpose of this clause "Armed Forces" means the forces constituted under the Army Act, 1950 (46 of 1950) , the Air Force Act, 1950 (45 of 1950) and the Navy Act, 1957 (62 of 1957);

21. Section 8 of the 2010 Act mandates that every State Government

shall, by notification, constitute a State Council for clinical

establishments. The composition of the State Council and the functions

that it shall perform are specifically delineated under the said Section 8

of the 2010 Act. Section 9 mandates that it shall be the responsibility

of the State Council for Clinical Establishments to compile and update

the State Register and to provide monthly returns in digital format to

update the National Register.

22. Correspondingly, Section 10 of the 2010 Act provides that the

State Government shall, by notification, set up an authority to be called

the District Registering Authority for each district for the registration of

clinical establishments. The composition of this Authority is to consist

of the following members, namely,

(a) District Collector - Chairperson;

      (b)    District Health Officer-         Convenor;
      (c)    Three members with such qualifications and on such terms and

conditions as may be prescribed by the Central Government.

23. Additionally, Section 11 provides that no person shall run a

clinical establishment unless it has been duly registered in accordance

with the provisions of this Act.

24. Section 12 provides for the conditions for registration and the

same reads as follows:-

"12. Condition for registration.--(1) For registration and continuation, every clinical establishment shall fulfil the following conditions, namely:--

(i) the minimum standards of facilities and services as may be prescribed;

(ii) the minimum requirement of personnel as may be prescribed;

(iii) provisions for maintenance of records and reporting as may be prescribed;

(iv) such other conditions as may be prescribed.

(2) The clinical establishment shall undertake to provide within the staff and facilities available, such medical examination and treatment as may be required to stabilise the emergency medical condition of any individual who comes or is brought to such clinical establishment."

25. Chapter IV of the 2010 Act provides for the procedure for

registration, which includes, inter alia, the application for a provisional

certificate of registration, the validity of provisional registration, and

the display of the certificate of registration.

26. Under Section 26 of the 2010 Act, provision is made for the

display of information for the purpose of filing objections. Once the

prescribed requirements are fulfilled, Section 28 provides for the

permanent registration of clinical establishments. To ensure continued

compliance, Section 33 empowers the authorities to conduct inspections

of registered clinical establishments.

27. There are provisions regarding the maintenance of records.

Chapter V of the 2010 Act concerns the Register of Clinical

Establishments. The District Registering Authority is required, within

two years of its establishment, to compile, publish, and maintain a

digital register of clinical establishments registered by it. The Authority

must enter the particulars of the certificates issued into a register

maintained in the form and manner prescribed by the State

Government. Similarly, Section 38 requires the State Government to

maintain a State Register of Clinical Establishments in a digital format,

containing such particulars as may be prescribed by the Central

Government.

28. Finally, Chapter VI provides penalties for contravening any

provision of the 2010 Act, while Chapter VII contains miscellaneous

provisions, including the power to remove difficulties and the power to

make rules.

29. In this regard, to effectively implement the provisions of the

2010 Act, the State of Jharkhand has enacted the Jharkhand State

Clinical Establishments (Registration and Regulation) Rules, 2013.

30. This court had directed the Respondents to file a detailed

affidavit on the status of compliance. We note that an affidavit was

filed on behalf of the State Government on 10th October 2025.

However, upon a perusal of the same, this Court regrets to observe that

the affidavit is significantly lacking in requisite detail.

31. For instance, this Court had instructed the respondents to submit

a status report listing unregistered clinical establishments in the State of

Jharkhand and detailing any action taken against those that have not

obtained registration under the provisions of the 2010 Act, read with the

2013 Rules. The Director-in-Chief of Health Services was also asked to

provide a list of all clinical establishments owned, controlled, or

managed by the Government or its Departments that are not registered

under the 2010 Act or the 2013 Rules. Furthermore, directions were

issued to clearly specify the type of medical facilities and services

being provided by clinical establishments such as District Hospitals,

Sub-Centres, etc., and to identify any gaps or deficiencies therein.

32. The State Government's affidavit, dated 10th of October 2025,

does not sufficiently bring to the fore the requisite details or throw

adequate light on the actual status of implementation of the 2010 Act or

the 2013 Rules. From the above, it is apparent that, while the statutory

regime is in place, its implementation appears casual and ineffective.

33. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Indian Council for Enviro-

Legal Action v. Union of India and Others reported in (1996) 5 SCC

281, was constrained to observe that enactment of a law, but tolerating

its infringement, is worse than not enacting a law at all. The Hon'ble

Court emphasized that allowing persistent violations renders legal

provisions nugatory and fosters a culture of lawlessness and observed

that when legislation is enacted to prohibit specific activities, its

effective enforcement is of paramount importance. The Hon'ble Court

also observed that if a law is not voluntarily obeyed, the State must

enforce it; otherwise, passive or active condonation of infringements,

often for personal gain, undermines the very fabric of a civilized

society. While these observations were originally made in the context

of environmental protection, they apply with equal force to the

enforcement of the 2010 Act and the 2013 Rules. A law is enacted

because the legislature deems it necessary for the public good, and its

continued infringement cannot be tolerated if the rule of law is to be

upheld.

34. Moreover, in the case of Consumer Education & Research

Centre v. Union of India and Others, reported in AIR 1995 SC 922,

the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that right to health is a

fundamental right under Article 21 read with Articles 39(e), 41, 43 and

48-A of the Indian Constitution. Since the 2010 Act is a step towards

securing this crucial right to the people, no stone must be left unturned

to effectively implement this Act and the Rules made thereunder.

35. It appears from the Government Notification dated 08.02.2012

that the State Council and the District Registering Authority have been

constituted by the State of Jharkhand. However, from the affidavits

filed on record, it is not clear whether the said Council and the District

Registering Authority are functional and discharging the functions they

are duty-bound to perform under the 2010 Act and the 2013 Rules.

36. The petitioner has also prayed for the issuance of a writ

commanding the respondents to ensure that all clinical establishments

in the State of Jharkhand provide immediate copies of all relevant

documents to patients or their attendants at the time of discharge, to

avoid any foul play. While this relief is widely worded, reference may

be made to the Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct,

Etiquette and Ethics) Regulations, 2002, published in Part III,

Section 4 of the Gazette of India dated 6th April 2002.

37. Under these Regulations, medical practitioners and

establishments are under a professional and ethical obligation to

maintain and provide medical records upon request. Consequently, the

grievance raised by the petitioner regarding the transparency of medical

documentation is already rooted in a specialized statutory framework

that demands strict adherence.

38. Regulation 1.3 of the 2002 Regulations deals with maintenance

of medical records by every physician, and the same reads as follows: -

"1.3 Maintenance of medical records 1.3.1 Every physician shall maintain the medical records pertaining to his / her indoor patients for a period of 3 years from the date of commencement of the treatment in a standard proforma laid down by the Medical Council of India as Appendix 3.

1.3.2. If any request is made for medical records either by the patients / authorised attendant or legal authorities involved, the same may be duly acknowledged and documents shall be issued within the period of 72 hours.

1.3.3 A Registered medical practitioner shall maintain a Register of Medical Certificates giving full details of certificates issued. When issuing a medical certificate he / she shall always enter the identification marks of the patient and keep a copy of the certificate.

He / She shall not omit to record the signature and/or thumb mark, address and at least one identification mark of the patient on the medical certificates or report. The medical certificate shall be prepared as in Appendix 2.

1.3.4 Efforts shall be made to computerize medical records for quick retrieval."

39. Regulation 7.2 of the 2002 Regulations provides that a physician

must maintain medical records of indoor patients for a period of three

years, as prescribed under Regulation 1.3. If a physician refuses to

provide these records within 72 hours of a request made by a patient or

their authorized representative under Regulation 1.3.2, such refusal

shall amount to professional misconduct.

40. Thus, on due consideration of the material on record and the

relevant legal provisions, we are satisfied that the legal regime is in

place, but there is laxity in enforcement. The authorities tasked with

implementing the provisions of the 2010 Act and the 2013 rules cannot

avoid enforcement or practice only symbolic, paper-based

implementation. Therefore, some directions to effectively implement

the provisions of the 2010 Act and the 2013 rules are called for.

41. Accordingly, we dispose of this petition by issuing the following

directions: -

a) The State Council, in accordance with the provisions of

Section 8(5) of the 2010 Act, must take immediate steps to

compile and update the State Register of Clinical

Establishments, send monthly returns to update the National

Register, represent the State in the National Council, hear

appeals against the orders of the Authority, and publish an

annual report on the implementation of standards within the

State of Jharkhand.

b) The State Council for Clinical Establishments, consistent

with the provisions of Section 9 of the 2010 Act, is directed to

compile the State Register of Clinical Establishments and,

further, to send monthly digital returns to update the National

Register.

c) The competent authorities under the 2010 Act and 2013

Rules must ensure that no individual operates a clinical

establishment unless it has been properly registered in

accordance with the provisions of the 2010 Act, read with the

2013 Rules. This directive aligns with the provisions in Section

11 of the 2010 Act. However, the competent authorities must

adhere to the principles of natural justice and fair play before

taking any precipitous or adverse action in this regard.

d) The competent authorities under the 2010 Act and the

2013 Rules must also ensure that the conditions for registration

prescribed under Section 12 of the 2010 Act, read with the 2013

Rules, are duly fulfilled before any registration is granted or

continued. For this, the competent authorities under the 2010

Act, read with the 2013 Rules, must undertake periodic and

thorough inspection of the clinical establishments.

e) The State Government should consider constituting a

flying squad comprising experts for periodic and thorough

inspection of clinical establishments, to ensure compliance with

the provisions of the 2010 Act, read with the 2013 Rules.

f) The authorities under the 2010 Act read with 2013 Rules

must apprise all the clinical establishments of the Indian Medical

Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics)

Regulations, 2002, in the context of maintenance of medical

records of their indoor patients and furnish of the same to the

patients/authorised attendants or legal authorities, within a

period 72 hours on request being made in that behalf.

g) A compliance report in the above regard must be filed by

the Director of Health Service with this Court within four

months from today, furnishing a status of compliance. Such a

compliance report must inter alia address the issues flagged in

paragraph 31 of this judgment and order.

42. All concerned shall act based on an authenticated copy of this

order. Interim applications, if any, shall stand disposed of. No costs.

(M. S. Sonak, C.J.)

(Deepak Roshan, J.) March 16, 2026 A.F.R. Amardeep/Manoj/Sharda/Cp.2 Uploaded on 16.03.2026