Back
2025 Supreme(Ker) 2448
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
HARISANKAR V. MENON, J.
Kerala Private Hospitals Association - Appellant
Versus
State Of Kerala - Respondent
WP(C) Nos.1365 of 2019, 2870 of 2024, 2637 of 2019, 27168 of 2023, 29353 of 2019 and 41738 of 2023
Decided on : 23-06-2025
Important Points
Subject
Health Law - Regulatory Framework
Act Referred
Kerala Clinical Establishments Registration and Regulation Act: S.16, S.2, S.39, S.52
Headnote
Facts of the case:
Multiple writ petitions filed against provisions of the Kerala Clinical Establishments Act resulted in claims of arbitrariness and constitutionality issues, particularly over the definitions and powers vested in authorities.
Findings of Court:
The legitimacy of the legislation was affirmed, highlighting its role in safeguarding health and public interest. The court emphasized due process in enforcement and potential for legislative review of practical difficulties.
Issues: 1. Authority of the State to legislate over Central Act; 2. Constitutionality of the Act/Rules; 3. Enforceability of undefined terms in regulations; 4. Assertion of arbitrary powers by authorities; 5. Legislative competence concerning 'dentistry'.
Ratio Decidendi: The court established that legislated health measures serve public interest and are within State powers, rejecting claims of unconstitutionality absent specific legal violations.
Result: Writ petitions dismissed.
For the Appellant : SRI.KURIAN GEORGE KANNANTHANAM (SR.), SRI.K.ANAND, SHRI.TONY GEORGE KANNANTHANAM
For the Respondent: SRI.C.UNNIKRISHNAN (KOLLAM), SRI.AJIT JOY, SRI.E.G.GORDEN, SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SHRI.N.MANOJ KUMAR, STATE ATTORNEY, SRI.A.ABDUL RAHMAN, SRI.ANEESH JAMES, SHRI.S.KANNAN, SENIOR G.P.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. health as a fundamental human right under the constitution. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. (Para 4 , 6 , 7 , 9) |
| 3. criteria for upholding or striking down legislation. (Para 10 , 18 , 24 , 26) |
| 4. legislative competence of the state in health regulation. (Para 12 , 20 , 28 , 30) |
| 5. dismissal of writ petitions with observations on practical difficulties. (Para 35) |
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
