Bombay High Court Dismisses PIL Seeking Free Treatment to All Citizens

Must Read

Madras High Court Observes Unexplained Delay in Procedural Safeguards, Quashes Detention Through Writ Petition

A Writ Petition was filed under Article 226 to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus. The petitioner P. Lakshmi,...

UK Court of Appeal Rules Home Department’s Deportation Policy of Immigrants Unlawful

Britain’s Court of Appeal quashed the Home Department’s deportation policy, declaring it unlawful; criticizing it for being too stringent...

Inordinate and Unexplained Delay in Considering Representation by Government Renders Detention Order Illegal: Madras High Court

A Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution was filed in the Madras High Court to declare the detention...

Privy Council Clarifies Approach To Winding up in “Deadlock” Cases in the Case of Chu v. Lau

The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council clarified several aspects of the law concerning just and equitable winding-up petitions,...

Madras High Court Directs Hospital To Submit Necessary Medical Reports to Authorization Committee for Approval of Kidney Transplant

A Writ Petition was filed under Article 226 to issue a Writ of Mandamus to K.G. Hospital, Coimbatore by...

Punjab Woman Evokes Petition for Protection Fearing Honour Killing

In the case of Divya Mattu and another vs State of Punjab and others, the petitioner, Divya, fearing honour...

Follow us

42-year old educationist and social worker Sagar Jondhale sought directions to the State to provide free treatment to all COVID-19 patients. In his petition, he asked the Maharashtra government to take care of the medical expenses of the infected. The High Court dismissed the petition on June 16th.

Issue

The social worker sought free treatment for virus-contracted patients in private hospitals. He challenged a notification released by the Department of Public Health and called for it to be quashed. The petition to the Bombay HC claimed that it was a necessity at such a difficult time.

Arguments Raised by The Petitioner

Advocate Anand Jondhale appeared for the petitioner. He put forth precedents on the maintainability of the PIL. He alleged that the government failed to live up to the expectations of the people. The submissions showed the plight of poor people and their inability to afford treatment. Anand claimed that the State must take up the responsibility to provide free treatment.

Court’s Observations on the Notification

The bench of Chief Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice KK Tated heard the case. They held that money would be used to improve the plight of poor people. The notification issued on May 21st specified its applicability for people who do not have medical insurance. It asked for the increase in bed capacity to accommodate a higher number of patients. According to the order, the State would regulate 80% of the beds under prescribed rates. Nevertheless, healthcare providers can charge for the 20% not covered under the notification.

Decision

The Court concluded that the citizens have the liberty to decide where to receive treatment. The order does not discriminate between the rich and the poor on the 80% reserved beds. The Court ruled out the possibility of free treatment. They further ruled that no person faced discrimination. The Court called out the petitioner for the frivolous PIL, as there was no infringement of a fundamental right.

Verdict

The Court dismissed the petition and levied a cost of Rs.5,00,000 on the petitioner. The money paid by the petitioner would be used to aid the plight of people. The State is at liberty to recover the amount from the arrears of his land if he fails to pay it in one month.


Libertatem.in 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.

 

Latest News

Madras High Court Observes Unexplained Delay in Procedural Safeguards, Quashes Detention Through Writ Petition

A Writ Petition was filed under Article 226 to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus. The petitioner P. Lakshmi, called for records of the...

UK Court of Appeal Rules Home Department’s Deportation Policy of Immigrants Unlawful

Britain’s Court of Appeal quashed the Home Department’s deportation policy, declaring it unlawful; criticizing it for being too stringent on immigrants to comply with. Background The...

Inordinate and Unexplained Delay in Considering Representation by Government Renders Detention Order Illegal: Madras High Court

A Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution was filed in the Madras High Court to declare the detention order of the husband of...

Privy Council Clarifies Approach To Winding up in “Deadlock” Cases in the Case of Chu v. Lau

The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council clarified several aspects of the law concerning just and equitable winding-up petitions, as well as shareholder disputes...

Madras High Court Directs Hospital To Submit Necessary Medical Reports to Authorization Committee for Approval of Kidney Transplant

A Writ Petition was filed under Article 226 to issue a Writ of Mandamus to K.G. Hospital, Coimbatore by P. Sankar & V. Sobana....

Punjab Woman Evokes Petition for Protection Fearing Honour Killing

In the case of Divya Mattu and another vs State of Punjab and others, the petitioner, Divya, fearing honour killing against her by her...

Punjab Woman Accuses Punjab Police of Keeping Husband in Illegal Custody and Framing Him in a False Case

In the case of Geeta v the State of Punjab, the petitioner evoked a writ petition of habeas corpus as she claimed that her...

Addition of Words as Prefixes or Suffixes Is an Infringement of a Registered Trademark: Delhi High Court

Justice Jayanth Nath allowed the Times Group to use its registered trademark “Newshour”, in the case of Bennett Coleman and Co. Ltd v. ARG Outlier...

Just Because the Deceased Did Not Have License, Does Not Imply He Was Negligent: Chhattisgarh High Court

In the case of Hemlal & Others v. Dayaram & Others, a Single Bench of Chhattisgarh High Court consisting of Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal annunciated various...

Hoardings Are Movable Property Under Section 2(3) of DMC Act Subject To the Twin Test: Delhi High Court

Delhi High Court in the case of Delhi International Airport v South Delhi Metropolitan Corporation discussed in detail the provision under Section 2(3) of the DMC...

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -