The Kerala Clinical Establishments Act, 2018 is constitutional and serves public health goals, despite challenges regarding definitions and authority powers; due process safeguards were upheld.

JUDGMENT :

HARISANKAR V. MENON, J.

It is often said that health is a human right and, therefore, a prerequisite in the overall development of a nation, which is achieved through the intervention of human beings. Health is described as a state of complete physical, mental, and social well-being of an individual. The Constitution of India under Article 21 mandates the protection of “life” and personal liberty of the citizen. The Directive Principles of State Policy - under Article 47- also lays down that it is the duty of the State to improve “Public Health”. The challenge in these writ petitions is to be considered in the backdrop of the afore-mentioned broad principles.

2. These writ petitions have been filed seeking to challenge various provisions of the Kerala Clinical Establishments (Registration and Regulation) Act, 2018 (hereinafter referred to as “Act”) and the Rules made thereunder (hereinafter referred to as “Rules”) as unconstitutional and arbitrary on various counts.

3. A reading of the preamble to the Act in question shows that the same is enacted for prescribing standards of facilities in services which may be provided by the clinical establishments for improvement of the “public health”. The term “clinical establishment” has been defined under Section 2 (c) of the Act to cover a hospital, maternity home, nursing home, clinic, sanatorium, or any institution that offers services, facilities with or without beds requiring treatment, diagnosis, or care for illness, injury, etc. The Act under Chapter IV provides for registration and standards for clinical establishments. The Act also provides for the cancellation of registration in certain circumstances. Chapter V provides for penalties for contravention of the provisions of the Act, non-registration, etc. Chapter VII provides for appeals, revision, etc., against various proceedings issued under the Act. Chapter VIII lays down the provisions with reference to the inspection of the clinical establishments. Chapter IX lays down miscellaneous provisions like the display of the certificate of registration of the medical establishment, maintenance of medical records, etc. Section 52 of the Act provides for the rule-making power, under which the Rules have been framed.

4. W.P(C) No.1365 of 2019 is filed by the Kerala Private Hospital Association and others seeking to challenge Sections 16 (2) and 39(2) and (3) of the Act as arbitrary and violative of Part III of the Constitution. They have also sought for a declaration that they are not liable to furnish the data required under the Act and Rules. W.P(C) No.29353 of 2019 is filed by the Indian Medical Association, Kerala State branch, as well as the Hospital Board of India, seeking to challenge various provisions of the Act and Rules as unconstitutional and unenforceable and ultra vires to the Act, respectively. W.P(C) No.27168 of 2023 is filed by the Indian Dental Association seeking almost similar reliefs. W.P(C) No.41738 of 2023 is filed by a few dentists seeking the same relief. They have also sought for a declaration that the inclusion of “dentistry” under Section 2 (j) of the Act is unconstitutional and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. W.P.(C) No.2637 of 2019 is filed by the Kerala Private Clinics Association and another seeking the same reliefs. W.P(C) No.2870 of 2024 is filed by the Medical Laboratory Owners Association seeking to challenge the provisions of the Act and Rules referred to above.

5. I have heard Sri.Kurian George Kannanthanam, Sri.George Poonthottam, Sri.K.I. Mayankutty Mather, the learned senior counsel, Sri.R.Surendran and