Indian Courts Tackle Livelihood, Liability, and State Accountability in Key Rulings

New Delhi – In a series of significant pronouncements, India's judiciary has recently addressed critical questions at the intersection of individual rights, state responsibility, and the scope of statutory protections. Rulings from the Supreme Court, the Bombay High Court, and the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) have delivered crucial clarifications on issues ranging from custodial deaths and the right to livelihood to the limits of consumer law and the abuse of insolvency proceedings. These decisions underscore the judiciary's active role in shaping legal accountability for both state and private actors.

---

Military Hospitals Outside Consumer Protection Act's Ambit, NCDRC Rules

The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) has ruled that medical services provided free of charge by military hospitals to armed forces personnel and their dependents are not covered under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The decision effectively bars medical negligence claims against these institutions from being adjudicated by consumer forums.

The bench, comprising President Mr. Justice A.P. Sahi and Member Mr. Bharatkumar Pandya, dismissed a complaint filed by Smt. Sarabjeet Kaur, who alleged severe medical negligence during her pregnancy at the Military Hospital, Jalandhar Cantt. Kaur contended that the failure of radiologists to conduct essential prenatal diagnostic tests resulted in her child being born with severe congenital deformies, causing immense emotional and financial hardship.

The Crux of the Matter: No 'Consumer' Without 'Consideration'

The Commission's decision hinged on the definition of a "consumer" under Section 2(42) of the Act. It reiterated the established legal principle that a person qualifies as a consumer only when services are hired or availed for a "consideration."

During the proceedings, the NCDRC focused on the maintainability of the complaint, asking the complainant to produce evidence of any payment, contribution, or statutory deduction for the medical services received. The complainant's counsel conceded that no such payment was made.

In its observation, the Commission stated, "Noting that Military Hospitals render medical services completely free of charge to armed forces personnel and their dependents, the Commission held that the complainant did not satisfy the definition of a 'consumer' under Section 2(42) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019."

The NCDRC heavily relied on the landmark three-judge Supreme Court bench decision in Indian Medical Association v. V.P. Shantha (1995) . This precedent established that services rendered entirely free of charge fall outside the consumer law's purview. The Commission specifically cited paragraph 55(9) of the Shantha judgment, which excludes government hospitals providing free treatment to all from the Act's ambit. While courts have carved out exceptions for services where consideration is paid indirectly—through insurance schemes, employment benefits, or statutory contributions—the NCDRC found no such contributory mechanism in this case.

Consequently, the complaint was dismissed as not maintainable, though the Commission granted the complainant the liberty to seek remedies in other appropriate legal forums, such as a civil court.

---

Bombay High Court: Insolvency Is No Shield Against Maintenance Obligations

In a firm declaration against the misuse of legal processes, the Bombay High Court has held that a person cannot invoke insolvency proceedings to evade or delay court-ordered maintenance payments to a spouse. Justice Jitendra Jain ruled that the Presidency-Towns Insolvency Act, 1909, cannot be used as a tool to undermine a Family Court's maintenance order.

The Court dismissed an insolvency petition filed by a husband who claimed inability to pay maintenance arrears amounting to ₹22.3 lakhs, which had accumulated after a Family Court ordered him to pay his wife ₹25,000 per month. He asserted that his monthly income was only between ₹12,000 and ₹15,000.

Justice Jain observed that the insolvency petition was a "calculated attempt to avoid compliance" and to "stall and circumvent execution proceedings initiated for recovery of maintenance."

The Court made several key points:

* Judicial Discretion: The use of the word "may" in the Insolvency Act grants the court discretion. Satisfying procedural requirements on paper does not create an automatic right to be declared insolvent.

* Pending Challenge: The husband had already challenged the maintenance order in a separate Criminal Revision Petition, which was still pending. Granting relief in the insolvency petition would amount to pre-judging the revision petition, which is impermissible.

* Debt Not Final: Since the maintenance order was under challenge, the claimed debt of ₹22.3 lakhs could not be treated as a final, undisputed debt, which is a crucial factor in insolvency matters.

The judgment categorically states, "The Insolvency Act cannot be abused to seek stay of the Family Court order granting maintenance when the petitioner himself has challenged that order... The object of the Insolvency Act is not to encourage this course of action." By dismissing the petition, the Court reinforced the principle that legal responsibilities, particularly those involving familial support, cannot be shed through strategic litigation.

---

Custodial Deaths a 'Blot on the System': Supreme Court Demands CCTV Compliance

The Supreme Court has taken the Union and several State Governments to task for their "shocking" failure to comply with its 2020 order mandating the installation of functional CCTV cameras—with night-vision and audio recording—in all police stations and offices of central investigating agencies.

A bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta, hearing a suo motu matter initiated after a report of 11 custodial deaths in Rajasthan over eight months, expressed grave displeasure. Justice Mehta called the situation a "blot on the system," adding, "This will not be tolerated by the country."

The Court noted that the Union government had not even filed a proper compliance affidavit, prompting Justice Nath to remark, "The Union is taking the Court very lightly."

Amicus Curiae, Senior Advocate Siddhartha Dave, informed the bench that only 11 states had filed the required affidavits. The Court singled out Madhya Pradesh as a "model State" for its "remarkable" implementation work. It expressed surprise that an administratively advanced state like Kerala was among the non-compliant, asking, "Why is Kerala shying away?"

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Union, undertook to file the affidavit and ensure compliance from all States and Union Territories within three weeks. The Court granted the time but issued a stern warning: if the affidavits are not filed by the next hearing on December 16, the Principal Secretary of the Home Department of the defaulting States/UTs and the heads of the concerned agencies must be personally present in court to explain the non-compliance.

---

Right to Livelihood: Bombay HC Examines PCC Denial to 26/11 Acquitted Man

The Bombay High Court is set to examine "in-chamber" a confidential police report concerning the denial of a Police Clearance Certificate (PCC) to Fahim Ansari, who was acquitted of all charges in the 26/11 Mumbai terror attack case. The denial has prevented Ansari from obtaining a commercial auto-rickshaw license, directly impacting his constitutional right to livelihood.

Ansari was accused of preparing maps for the attackers but was acquitted by the special court, a decision later upheld by the Supreme Court. After being released from prison in 2019 (following a conviction in a separate case in Lucknow), he struggled to find stable employment. His application for a PCC, a mandatory requirement for a Police Service Vehicle (PSV) badge to operate his auto-rickshaw commercially, was met with inaction.

An RTI query revealed the reason for the denial: police considered him a member of the banned outfit ‘Lashkar-e-Toiba’ (LeT). Ansari's petition argues this is an "arbitrary" violation of his fundamental rights under Articles 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution.

The plea states, "The fact that the petitioner was tried in the (26/11 attack) case cannot operate as a blanket ban that disentitles him from availing opportunities, especially in the light of the acquittal order." The case raises profound questions about the lingering consequences of an accusation, even after a full acquittal by the highest court, and whether administrative actions can effectively nullify a judicial verdict, thereby curtailing a citizen's ability to earn a dignified living.