2018 Supreme(SC) 710

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ARUN MISHRA, UDAY UMESH LALIT, JJ.
UNION OF INDIA – APPELLANT
VERSUS
MOOL CHAND KHAIRATI RAM TRUST – RESPONDENT
CIVIL APPEAL NO.3155 OF 2017 WITH CIVIL APPEAL NOS.3153-3154 OF 2017
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3156 OF 2017 AND CIVIL APPEAL NOS.3157-3158
OF 2017
Decided On : 09-07-2018

IMPORTANT POINTS
Cy-pres doctrine – Where a clear charitable intention is expressed and also the mode, if the mode becomes in-executable the law will substitute another mode cy-pres, i.e., as near as possible to the mode specified by the donor but the charitable intention will not be permitted to fail.
Right to basic necessities under Article 21 includes right to health and right of patients to be treated with dignity.
State can impose obligation of medical treatment to 10% IPD and 25% OPD patients belonging to economically weaker sections when the Government land is held by hospitals; and it is the constitutional obligation imposed upon such hospitals.
Stipulation for free treatment does not amount to restriction under Article 19(6) on the right enshrined under Article 19(1)(g).
It was not necessary to enact a statutory provision by the Government in view of existing liability as per policy/rules/statutory provisions as to ethical standards and other statutory provisions in force.

Headnote:(a) Words and Phrases – Cy-pres doctrine – Where a clear charitable intention is expressed and also the mode, if the mode becomes in-executable the law will substitute another mode cy-pres, i.e., as near as possible to the mode specified by the donor but the charitable intention will not be permitted to fail. (Para 40)

       (b) Words and Phrases – Charitable – Public purpose for benefit of needy people, who cannot pay for benefits received – Charitable trust is a trust for the benefit of general public – Non-profit earning essential ingredient – Instantly land allotted to hospitals for charitable purposes – Mode of charity not specified – Cy-pres doctrine coming into play – Claim of the hospitals that they are undertaking charity at their own level – Not enough to avoid imposition of mode of doing charity – Conditions conforming to section 2, Charitable Endowments Act, 1890 – ‘Free treatment' to economically weaker sections – A normal obligation of every charitable hospital – Charity in common parlance is a relief to the poor and needy – Even Intellectual Property Rights have to give way to the human rights – Held, when the Government land had been obtained for charitable purpose of running the hospital, the Government is within its right to impose obligation of giving free treatment to certain percentage of people of weaker sections – Code of Ethics of MCI. (Para 43, 44, 45, 46, 49, 50, 52, 57, 58)

       1990 (Supp) SCC 97; (1992) 3 SCC 390 – Relied upon

       (1971) 3 All ER I029, CA; (1844) 10 CI & Fin 908; (1853) 22 LJ Ch 959 – Referred

       (c) Constitution of India – Article 21, 47 and 51A(h) – Right to basic necessities – Includes right to health – Right of patients to be treated with dignity – Obligation of State – State can impose obligation of medical treatment to 10% IPD and 25% OPD patients belonging to economically weaker sections when the Government land is held by hospitals; and it is the constitutional obligation imposed upon such hospitals – More so when land was allotted for hospitals if they are charitable and non-communal – Imposition of such obligations on hospitals held justified – a (Para 60, 62, 63,65, 68, 70)

       (1997) 2 SCC 83; (2014) 1 SCC 384; AIR 2014 SC 1469; (1989) 4 SCC 286; (1996) 4 SCC 37 – Relied upon

       (2008) 1 SCC 683 – Distinguished

       (d) Constitution of India – Article 19(1)(g) and 19(6) and 162 – Right to carry on medical profession – Code of Ethics of MCI – Condition of free treatment of patients of weaker section imposed on hospitals – Held conditions not a restriction on the right to carry on medical profession – Enacting a law to impose conditions not required – There has to be positive action for removing inequality between man and man – State can frame policy under Article 162. (Para 83, 85, 86, 93, 95)

       (1955) 2 SCR 225 : AIR 1955 SC 549; AIR 1962 SC 12; 1988 Suppl. SCC 176; 1995 Suppl. 4 SCC 236; AIR 1995 SC 855 : 1995 (1) SCC 652; (1996) 10 SCC 104; (1999) 6 SCC 247 – Relied upon

       (1964) 1 SCR 322; (1986) 3 SCC 615; AIR 1967 SC 1170 – Referred

       (e) Delhi Development Authority (Disposal of Developed Nazul Land) Rules, 1981 – Rules 5 and 20 – Allotment of land to hospitals – Lease deed of 16 out of 18 hospitals that were allotted land by DDA containing condition of free treatment to weaker section – Letter of allotment of the other two hospitals also containing the condition but not the lease deed – Delhi High Court holding the other two hospitals also obliged to follow the condition – SLP there-against dismissed by reasoned order – Held Delhi High Court decision would apply to all similarly situated hospitals – a (Para 98, 10)

       SLP (C) No.5630 of 2008 – Relied upon

       (f) Administrative law – Government decision – Judicial review – Justice Qureshi Committee making recommendations after due enquiry, hearing the hospitals, and recording evidence – Report accepted by Government and decision taken – Such decision cannot be said to be unilateral. (Para 104)

       (2009) 2 SCC 703; (2008) 2 SCC 672 – Distinguished

       Facts of the case;

       The question involved in the appeals is with respect to the validity of Circular issued by the Government of NCT of Delhi (GNCTD) on 2.2.2012 whereby it intimated the hospitals to implement the judgment of Delhi High Court with regard to free treatment to the weaker sections of the society.

       As the respondents-hospitals were not a party in the said case, they have questioned imposition of said conditions in the impugned order by filing writ applications. The High Court has quashed the imposition of conditions.

       Finding of the Court:

       Stipulation for free treatment does not amount to restriction under Article 19(6) on the right enshrined under Article 19(1)(g).

       It was not necessary to enact a statutory provision by the Government in view of existing liability as per policy/rules/statutory provisions as to ethical standards and other statutory provisions in force.

       Result: Appeals allowed.