Supreme Court’s Order on Free COVID-19 Testing: Philanthropic Endeavour or Judicial Overreach?

Must Read

India’s International ‘Retrospective Taxation’ Regime Vis-a-Vis PCA Rulings in Vodafone and Cairn in 2020

The imposition of retrospective taxation of foreign companies doing business in India has been at the helm of controversy...

What is the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016?

The Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (“RERA”) is an Act of the Parliament. It seeks to protect...

Should the Exorbitant Amounts Charged for RT-PCR Tests be Refunded?

Introduction A plea has been filed in the Honourable Supreme Court of India seeking a refund of exorbitant amounts charged...

Should CCTV’s be Installed in the Police Station?

Introduction In a recent judgment, the bench led by Justice Nariman issued directions to both the state and Union Territory...

A Legal Analysis of the West Bengal Political Crisis on IPS Deputation

The Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) has recently summoned three IPS officers of West Bengal (WB). The decision was...

Explained: Postal Ballot for NRIs

At the end of November 2020, Election Commission sent a proposal to the law ministry to amend the Representation...

Follow us

The Supreme Court of India on 8th April guided the legislature to give citizens free COVID-19 testing in government labs as well as at private establishments endorsed by the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) or the World Health Organization (WHO).

The Supreme Court’s interim order required that-

  1. The tests relating to COVID-19 whether at an Approved Government Laboratories or Approved Private Laboratories shall be free of cost. The respondents shall issue necessary direction in this regard immediately.
  2. Tests relating to COVID-19 must be carried out in NAB accredited Labs or any agencies approved by WHO or ICMR.”

while being an excellent goal, is by all accounts an overextension of its judicial reach.

The apex court, hearing the instance of Shashank Deo Sudhi v. Union of India, by the order of the bench of Ashok Bhushan and Ravindra Bhat of the Supreme Court, passed the aforementioned interim order.

The court, giving a choice of an Ethical & Moral dimension, said private medical clinics and research facilities have a significant task to carry out in containing the spread of the pandemic by ‘expanding charitable administrations in the hour of national emergency.’

Supreme Court, Jurisdiction of High Court, section 153c of the act, Deputation Allowance, Unorganized Labour Payments

Legal Aspect

The duty of the judiciary is simply to give effect to the legislative policy of a statute in the light of the Constitution and not to reconstruct or create a policy. The court does not have jurisdiction in such issues since no legal question is involved.

At the end of the day, judges are individual who are not chosen through a democratic process; thus, they do not have the power to decide what should be done with public money or for that matter private money as in this case. The elected representative in the legislature are the ones who are responsible for such policy decisions which fall in their jurisdiction.

The government has specific power under the Essential Commodities Act Under Section 3 stating

“If the  Central  Government is of opinion that it is necessary or expedient so to do for maintaining or increasing supplies of any essential commodity….”

thus, to regulate and govern matters related to prices of testing by private labs and it is better placed to decide such issues that have implications for the public exchequer. The Supreme Court does not have the required power, or the capability as it lacks the proper acumen related to proper economic policy-making, keeping in mind that the government is well equipped with several economic analyst, policy-makers and administrators.

Economical Aspect

In the case of Peerless General Finance and Investment Co. Ltd. v. RBI, Justice Kasliwal observed

“Courts are not to interfere with the economic policy which is the function of experts. It is not the function of the courts to sit in judgment over matters of economic policy and it must necessarily be left to the expert bodies. In such matters, even experts can seriously and doubtlessly differ. Courts cannot be expected to decide them without even the aid of experts.”

The idea of going ahead with such a policy which might seem fruitful in the short-term, can turn out to be disastrous, keeping in mind that there is a lack of incentive on the part of private entities to take such endeavours as there is no set repayment policy or a policy at all.

Secondly, it might even lead to existing private labs shutting down, seeing that there is no incentive in continuing such endeavour which might lead to losses in the future, as this can drastically affect the testing rate in a country like ours where testing rates are extremely low.

In a situation like this rather than forcing private entities to continue with charitable acts, the government should establish a proper reimbursement plan for COVID testing. Thus, creating an incentive for private entities to go ahead and establish such labs. Therefore, leaving the acts of charity to the people and the organisation themselves to be done voluntarily rather than being forced by the Apex Court.

Resting the case

According to the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR), India had performed 25,144 tests on 24,254 individuals as of 8pm on March 25. Among these, a total of 581 individuals who had been confirmed positive among suspected cases and contacts of known positive cases.

This puts the rate of testing in India at nearly 18 tests per one million of the population (World Bank estimates, 2018). Thus, clearly showing how low testing rates India has been working with.

To simply put the order into perspective, the decision in short-term might seem philanthropic and pro-poor. The issue, however, is that in the long term it deters private entities from establishing such labs, simply due to the reason of lack of incentive as there is no guarantee of repayment or compensation.  Even so, some private entities would still go ahead, but a majority of them would simply avoid setting up such labs due to a lack of incentive. is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgements from the court. Follow us on Google News, InstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can also subscribe for our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest News

SC: Under-21 Convicts Can Be Given Less Than Minimum Sentence, Resorts To Probation of Offenders Act

The Supreme Court resorted to the Probation of Offenders Act to sidestep the mandate under Section 397 of the Indian Penal Code that mentions a sentence of not less than 7 years to those convicted of armed robbery, to give a chance to two young convicts to reform their lives.

Environment Protection Act Passed at the Instance of Foreign Powers: NHAI in Karnataka HC

The National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) claimed in a submission that the Environment Protection Act 1986 was passed not only for the protection of the environment by the parliament but also at the instance of foreign powers. This statement was made while referring to a UN conference and got the NHAI into great trouble in the Karnataka High Court.

Delhi High Court To Implement a Hybrid System Through Virtual and Physical Hearing

On Friday the Delhi High Court said that they have initiated steps to implement a mode wherein hearing can be done by virtual as well as physical mode. The Delhi High Court is aiming to implement the Hybrid mode. It stated that when the particular bench is conducting a virtual hearing the lawyer may opt for this mode after giving prior intimation about the same.

Mercy Plea of Rajiv Gandhi Assassination Case To Be Decided in Four Weeks, TN Governor To Supreme Court

Tamil Nadu Governor Banwarilal Purohit on Thursday told the Supreme Court that a decision on the mercy petition of one of the convicts serving a life sentence for the assassination of former Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi, AG Perarivalan will be taken within four weeks. The petition has been pending with the Governor since December 30, 2015.

Bombay High Court Questions FIR Over Journalist Alleged of Communist Comment on WhatsApp

An FIR lodged against the editor of Marathi newspaper, Rajkumar Chhajed has been questioned by the Bombay High Court. The Maharashtra Police has accused Chhajed of creating a rift between the two communities based on a WhatsApp message.

Allahabad High Court Expresses Dissatisfaction on Counsels Seeking Unnecessary Adjournments

The petition had been filed by Smt. Radha prayed to issue directions to Judicial Magistrate-I in Faizabad. The petition sought a speedy decision in...

[Delhi Riots] When the IT Ministry Calls Us, We Will Go Says Harish Salve To Delhi High Court

The Vice President and Managing Director of Facebook, Ajit Mohan told the Supreme Court that when the representatives of the company are called by the Information Technology Ministry they will come and record their statements.

Allahabad High Court Seeks Response on Compensation of Cutting Trees From National Highways Authority of India (Nhai) 

The Order had come in the form of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by a bunch of law students in Uttar Pradesh. The...

Doctrine of Proportionality Must Adhere to Reasonableness Principal Test: Madras High Court

Young Men's Christian Association built a commercial complex and leased it without having due permission. The District Collector & Tahsildar issued a show-cause notice...

Delhi High Court Refuses To Stay Release of ‘The White Tiger’ on the OTT Platform Netflix

A plea requesting a stay on the release of the film ‘The White Tiger’ by the American producer, John Hart Jr. alleging copyright violation was rejected by the Delhi High Court on Thursday.

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -