SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2020 Supreme(Bom) 958

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT NAGPUR BENCH
R.K. Deshpande, Pushpa V Ganediwala, JJ.
Hospitals Association, Nagpur - Appellant
Versus
Government Of Maharashtra - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 1936 of 2020
Decided On : 23-10-2020

Advocates Appeared:
Pradeep Arora, Advocate, Petitioner In Person, Advocate, Subodh Dharmadhikari, Advocate, Deven Chauhan, Advocate, Ashutosh Kumbhkoni, Advocate, Anand Deshpande, Advocate, Manish Bable, Advocate, Akashy Shinde, Advocate, Jemini Kasat, Advocate, Shreerang Bhandarkar, Advocate, D.J. Deshpande, Advocate, Anand Parchure, Advocate

Headnote:(A) Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897 - Section 2 - Disaster Management Act, 2005 - Section 65 - Healthcare providers regulations - The court addressed the legality of government notifications imposing restrictions on charges by private hospitals for non-COVID patients, deeming them unconstitutional due to overreach and lack of legislative authority. The findings emphasized violations of fundamental rights under Article 19(1)(g) - The state lacks authority to regulate rates for non-COVID patients under public health laws. (Paras 16, 17, 19, 28)

(B) Constitutional Law - Right to practice - Any regulatory measure must have a clear legislative foundation and cannot infringe upon the rights of professionals unless specifically authorized. Lower courts do not substitute opinions unless a clear violation exists. (Paras 28, 30)

Facts of the case:
A petition challenged government notifications intended to regulate private hospital charges during the COVID-19 pandemic, alleging they were unconstitutional as they unreasonably imposed restrictions on healthcare providers. The notifications purportedly aimed to address patient exploitation but lacked legal backing for non-COVID cases.

Findings of Court:
The court concluded that the state government exceeded its powers, stating that the fundamental rights of the petitioners were violated, and that the impugned regulations lacked legislative support and thus, constitute illegal restrictions.

Issues: Legality and scope of government notifications regulating charges of healthcare providers for non-COVID patients, the competence of state to regulate healthcare charges, and implications for individual rights under the Constitution.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the legislative field is already occupied by existing laws regulating healthcare, and the government lacks authority to impose unilateral restrictions without legislative enactment.

Result: Notifications quashed; petition allowed.

Table of Content
1. response to covid-19 pandemic and related legislation (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5)
2. arguments pertaining to state regulations and fundamental rights (Para 6 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14)
3. court's analysis of notifications and their authority (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 16 , 24)
4. determination of legislative competence regarding hospital rates (Para 17 , 19 , 20 , 22 , 23)
5. conclusion on the legality of government notifications (Para 28 , 30 , 31 , 32)

JUDGMENT

R.K. Deshpande, J. - The entire world is under the shadow of unprecedented atmosphere and situation, which has arisen due to Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic outbreak. The disease has spread its tentacles all over the world, which is fighting a war against it. The World Health Organization (WHO) has declared COVID-19 as pandemic on 11-3-2020. Three major challenges were pitted and those were - (i) to prevent the spread-over of the disease, (ii) to detect the persons infected with the disease and its source, i.e. contact tracing, and (iii) to treat the patients of the disease. The WHO has issued interim guidance on 19-3-2020, laying down the laboratory test guiding principles for the patients, who meet the suspected case definition, and the protocol to meet the aforesaid three challenges. On similar lines, the Indian Council for Medical Research (ICMR) in the Department of Health Research, Government of India, has issued the guidelines on 4-4-2020, 9-4-2020, 17-4-2020, 24-4-2020 and 18-5-2020. The guidelines were also issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, on 15-4-2020.

2. The only organ of the Constitution, which shouldered the responsibility to fight this war against COVID-19, is the executive, which was required to formulate the policy for the better prevention of the spread of the dangerous epidemic disease of COVID-19. The executives at the Centre and the States invoked the provisions of the EPIDEMIC DISEASES ACT , 1897 (the ED Act). Section 2 therein empowers the State Government to take special measures and prescribe regulations as to dangerous diseases. The twin tests need to be satisfied to attract this provision - (i) that the State or any part thereof is visited by, or threatened with, an outbreak of any dangerous disease, and (ii) that the ordinary provisions of the law for the time being in force are insufficient for the purpose. It further empowers the State Government to take or require or empower any person to take any such measures and to prescribe temporary regulations to be observed by the public or any person or class of persons as it deems necessary to prevent the outbreak of such disease or to spread thereof. It further empowers the State Government to determine in what manner and by whom any expenses incurred (including compensation if any) shall be defrayed.

3. In exercise of the power conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 2 of the ED Act, the Maharashtra COVID-19 Regulations, 2020 ('COVID Regulations', for short), framed on 14-3-2020, declaring the 'Coronavirus Disease' as dangerous epidemic disease. Regulation 3 therein empowers the appointment of all Divisional Commissioners of Revenue Divisions and all Collectors and Municipal Commissioners as 'Empowered Officer' under sub-section (1) of Section 2 of the ED Act to take such measures as are necessary to prevent the outbreak of COVID-19 or the spread thereof within their respective jurisdictions. The respondent No.2- the Municipal Commissioner, Nagpur, is, therefore, an Empowered Officer for Nagpur. Regulation 4 therein states that all hospitals (Government and Private) should have separate corners for screening of suspected cases of COVID-19. Clause 10 under the said Regulation deals with the implementation of the containment measures stated therein, but not limited to these, in order to prevent spread of the disease.

4. The Parliament has enacted the Disaster Management Act, 2005 (the DM ACT ) to provide for the effective management























Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top