Back
Questions 's Stand on Proposal, Citing Healthcare
The on Wednesday sharply questioned the ’s stance on the long-pending proposal to establish an All India Institute of Medical Sciences () in the state, orally observing that a relatively better healthcare infrastructure should not become a “” for Kerala. A comprising Chief Justice Soumen Sen and Justice Syam Kumar was hearing seeking the establishment of an under the . The Court directed the to review the issue and take necessary steps, posting the matter for further hearing after six weeks.
The Court’s remarks come in the backdrop of the (DSGI) submitting that the proposal was still at the consultation stage and that a decision could be taken only after the decides on the continuation of the PMSSY for the next five years. The DSGI further argued that the was prioritising states with weaker healthcare infrastructure, and that Kerala, with its comparatively better facilities, did not require immediate attention.
The “” Argument
The Bench was quick to challenge this logic. “So, does the not require an ? Is that the stand of the ?” the Court asked orally. It questioned whether the presence of a larger number of private hospitals could be treated as a for Kerala. “There are more private hospitals here, Is that a ? In terms of density of population, is highest… what are the criterion that the State does not meet?” the Court asked.
The Court further pointed out that not all citizens can afford private healthcare. “All of them cannot go to Aster and other big big names… Which criterion is not followed?” the Bench remarked, underscoring the need for for the poor and needy.
Disparity in Allocation
The Bench also noted that institutions have been established in other relatively affluent parts of the country, including multiple institutions in some states. “That becomes a for the State? Why has Delhi come? All affluent people are there… There are States with more than one . There are enough reasons for Kerala to have an … We are not satisfied with the criteria,” the Court said.
The Court observed that the idea of establishing an in Kerala dates back to . The state had identified locations on earlier occasions under the PMSSY scheme, and on , a memorandum was submitted to the Union Health Minister seeking approval for an in Kozhikode district. Despite prolonged correspondence, no substantial progress had been made.
Legal and Administrative Implications
The Court’s intervention raises significant questions about the transparency and objectivity of the criteria used by the for allocating under the PMSSY. Legal experts point out that the is an integral part of , and the state’s obligation to provide accessible healthcare cannot be defeated by a comparative advantage in private infrastructure. The High Court’s observation that population density and the inadequacy of existing government hospitals must be considered could set a precedent for how healthcare infrastructure is distributed among states.
The Bench also noted that the had already identified land for the proposed institution, though the maintained that identification of land was not equivalent to formal allocation. The Court recorded the DSGI’s assurance that the would review the matter and directed the to take necessary steps.
Impact on Healthcare Policy
This case highlights the tension between centralised resource allocation and state-specific needs. Kerala, despite having better health indicators than many states, faces a high patient load due to its dense population and the influx of patients from neighbouring regions. The lack of a central government-run super-specialty hospital like forces many residents to rely on expensive private care or travel to other states.
The Court’s directive comes at a time when the PMSSY scheme is under review for the next five-year cycle. If the is compelled to adopt more objective and need-based criteria, it could reshape the distribution of and other central healthcare institutions across the country.
Conclusion
The has put the on notice, demanding a clear rationale for the delay and exclusion. With the matter now set for further hearing in six weeks, all eyes will be on the ’s response. For legal professionals, the case serves as a reminder that in public health allocation must be reasonable, , and grounded in . The outcome could have far-reaching implications for the and federal healthcare policy in India.
