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

2026 Supreme(Online)(Jhk) 1051

HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND
Deepak Roshan, J
Ranjiv Ranjan – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
W.P. (PIL) No. 4271 of 2019



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Party-In-Person
For the Respondents: Mr. Ashok Kumar, Dr. Ashok Kumar Singh, Mr. Ramit Satender, Ms. Neelam Kumari

The state's failure to effectively enforce the Clinical Establishments Act, 2010, and associated regulations necessitates proactive judicial intervention to ensure institutional compliance, mandatory record maintenance, and accountability in healthcare services, thereby protecting the fundamental right to health.

Headnote:(A) Clinical Establishments (Registration and Regulation) Act, 2010 - State of Jharkhand Clinical Establishments (Registration and Regulation) Rules, 2013 - Public Interest Litigation - Alleged non-compliance with statutory provisions by clinical establishments - Need for effective enforcement of regulatory regime to ensure quality healthcare services and prevent negligence - Mandate for maintaining, updating state registers, and inspection procedures under the Act. (Paras 16-29, 40)

(B) Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics) Regulations, 2002 - Regulation 1.3 - Disclosure of medical records - Mandate for medical establishments to provide records to patients or authorized representatives within 72 hours upon request - Refusal amounts to professional misconduct. (Paras 36-39)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, aggrieved by the death of his father due to alleged medical negligence at a hospital and facing difficulties in obtaining timely medical records and registering complaints, filed a PIL. The petition sought directions for the strict enforcement of the Clinical Establishments Act, 2010, and requested inquiries into issues of medical negligence and alleged cybercrimes related to RTI filings.

Findings of Court:
The court declined to adjudicate on individual claims of medical negligence and cybercrimes as they involved disputed questions of fact, granting liberty to pursue alternate legal remedies. However, noting the laxity in the enforcement of the 2010 Act and the 2013 Rules, the court issued specific directions to the state authorities, including the mandatory updating of state registers, ensuring compliance with registration conditions, constituting task forces for inspections, and enforcing the requirement for providing medical records within 72 hours.

Issues: Whether the state effectively implemented the Clinical Establishments (Registration and Regulation) Act, 2010, and whether mandatory directions should be issued for the regulation of healthcare service providers and transparency in medical documentation.

Ratio Decidendi: The court affirmed that the right to health is a fundamental right. When a legal framework for public health regulation is enacted, its enforcement must be rigorous; passive or symbolic compliance is insufficient to uphold the rule of law. Regulatory bodies must actively ensure registration, quality standards, and transparency in medical record maintenance. Result : Petition disposed of with directions.

Table of Content
1. overview of petitioner grievances and the nature of the pil. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7)
2. court refuses to adjudicate personal disputes unfit for pil jurisdiction. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15)
3. necessity of effective implementation of the clinical establishments act, 2010. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35)
4. mandatory adherence to medical record disclosure and regulatory oversight. (Para 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42)

Reserved on: 28.01.2026 Pronounced on:16 /03/2026 Per Deepak Roshan, J.

1. Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties.

2. The present writ petition has been filed in purported public interest, seeking the following reliefs:-

(i) For issuance of Writ(s)/order(s)/direction(s) and particularly a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding and direction upon the respondents and especially respondent Civil Surgeon Ranchi, to ensure strict compliance of the Clinical Establishments Act, 2010 and take immediate and strict action as per law for non-fulfillment of provisions of the said act.

(ii) For issuance of Writ(s)/order(s)/direction(s) and particularly a writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding upon the respondents and especially respondent Civil Surgeon Ranchi to take-action upon the report submitted by Magistrate Sadar Ranchi with respect to the death of the petitioner's father on 15/10/2017, on act of sheer negligence on the part of entire management, doctors and nurses of Medanta Hospital Ranchi.

(iii) For issuance of Writ(s)/order(s)/direction(s) and particularly a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding upon the respondents to immediately and forthwith holding enquiry in respect to ignore the complaints of bonafide citizen with respect to legalities been committed by respondent authority.

(iv) For issuance of Writ(s)/order(s)/direction(s) and particularly a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding upon the respondents to hold an enquiry in respect to illegal and fraudulent committing cyber-crime and misusing the petitioner's email ID to close the RTI filed in PMO Office.

(v) For issuance of Writ(s)/order(s)/direction(s) and particularly a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding and direction upon the respondents to ensure that all the Clinical Establishments in the State of Jharkhand are directed to provide immediately copies of all documents to the patient's attendants/representative on discharge to avoid any foul play.

3. This petition has been filed in the backdrop of the fact that the petitioner’s father was suffering from Parkinson’s disease (Stage III– IV) and was undergoing treatment for the same in Bhubaneswar, Odisha. On 05.10.2017, the petitioner’s father suffered injuries following a fall at his residence in Ranchi. He was initially taken to the Rajendra Institute of Medical Sciences (RIMS), Ranchi, at approximately 8:00 a.m., where he received primary treatment by way of a Diazepam injection. However, it is the petitioner’s case that until 9:45 a.m., the medical staff at RIMS, Ranchi, failed to provide adequate care, specifically neglecting to dress his wounds or provide necessary medical services. Aggrieved by the perceived negligence and dissatisfied with the services at RIMS, the petitioner shifted his father to Medanta Hospital, Ranchi, at approximately 10:10 a.m. on the same day.

4. Furthermore, the petitioner has pleaded that on 06.10.2017, being dissatisfied with the treatment offered at Medanta, Ranchi, he requested the hospital to discharge his father to facilitate a transfer to another medical facility for treatment. Accordingly, the petitioner’s father was discharged from Medanta Hospital, Ranchi, at approximately 05:00 p.m. on the same day, following the intervention of the Head of the Hospital, Dr. Sharad Agarwal.

5. Subsequently, the petitioner has further pleaded that he took his father home, however, on 09.10.2017, when the patient ceased taking food, the petitioner co

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