1. The petitioners have challenged the vires of West Bengal Clinical Establishments (Registration, Regulation and Transparency) Act, 2017.

2. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioners has submitted that, various provisions of the Act of 2017 fail the test of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. He has drawn the attention of the Court to Sections 2(c)(ii), 7(3)(i), 7(3)(l) to (t), 7(3)(p), 7(3)(s), 27, 29, 30, 33(1), 33(2), 36, 38(1)(iii), 38(1)(ix) and Section 42 of the Act of 2017 in this regard. He has submitted that, the various provisions of the Act of 2017 are arbitrary, unreasonable and irrational. They infringe upon the fundamental right to practice one’s profession guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.

3. Referring to Section 2(c) of the Act of 2017, Learned Senior Advocate for the petitioners has submitted that, the 2nd explanation to the definition of ‘clinical establishment’ allows an individual medical practitioner to be treated as operating in any establishment within the meaning of the Act of 2017, in the event, such individual medical practitioner, in the discharge of his duties and attending to his patients, require a medicine to be administered to the patient visiting his chamber in view of the emergent medical condition of such patient. Then such individual medical practitioner does not remain out of the purview of the Act of 2017. The various provisions of the Act of 2017 are onerous for an individual medical practitioner to comply with. He has referred to the statement of objects and reasons of the Act of 2017 and submitted that, the stated objective of the Act of 2017 is to regulate the affairs of large nursing homes and in effect it has brought an individual medical practitioner into its fold. The Act of 2017 has the effect of impeding the professional judgment of an individual medical practitioner. Such an effect of the Act of 2017 is neither desirable nor should be permitted. Such an effect will impede the discharge of professional duties of an individual medical practitioner, will affect the public interest and in fact will deprive the public from receiving the best medical treatment available. Requiring an individual medical practitioner to comply with the rigours of the Act of 2017 is unreasonable, impracticable and not desirable. An individual medical practitioner will have to obtain a registration under the Act of 2017 to avoid any prosecution. Such a medical practitioner will have to maintain records in the electronic form, provide for a complaint redressal mechanism to the patient party, amongst others. An individual medical practitioner, if he chooses to stand out of the Act of 2017, then he would not be able to administer any emergency medicine to any patient requiring such procedure. As an example, a cardiologist would not be able to conduct an ECG or administer a lifesaving medicine to a patient who may have come with severe medical conditions to him for treatment and in his judgment, the patient requires the life-saving medicine to be administered immediately to save the life of the patient. If a medical practitioner, does not administer the requisite life-saving medicine to a patient brought to him, he would be violating the Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics) Regulations, 2002. The Act of 2017 cannot require a medical practitioner to act in breach of the Regulations of 2002.

4. Referring to Section 7(3)(i) of the Act of 2017, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioners has submitted that, the Sub-Section cast a duty upon a medical practitioner to provide immediate medical treatment to a victim of an accident, injury or trauma before reporting to the police station. He has submitted that, the Act of 2017, while laying down such a provision, does not provide for the fact that, there are different branches of practice of medicine and that, one branch may not have the requisite expertise to handle a situation requ