Court, even in public interest, is required to, unless the facts speak for
themselves, satisfy the Court as to the illegality in the actions of the
State/public body affecting the public interest. A petitioner, even in a Public
Interest Litigation cannot seek commencement of a roving and fishing
inquiry.
The present petition has been filed without studying the legal position
and which lends us to believe that the same is more in the nature of personal
interest as a public interest activist rather than any desire to toil for the
benefit of the public.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 27th May, 2014.
W.P.(C) 3262/2014
CENTRE FOR HUMAN RIGHTS
Versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
1.
This petition filed as a Public Interest Litigation (PIL), seeks:
(i)
a direction to the respondents Director General of Health
Services, Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, Government of India
and to the Kalawati Saran Children’s Hospital, Connaught Place,
New Delhi to clearly define a policy regarding the treatment of
children ensuring their healthy care and upbringing and ensuring
effective implementation of the same;
(ii)
issuance of a direction to the respondents to file a status report
regarding the conditions in the Kalawati Saran Children’s Hospital;
(iii)
issuance of a direction for constitution of an independent
committee to inspect the conditions in Kalawati Saran Children’s
Hospital and to give specific suggestions for the effective
improvement of the said hospital.
2.
It is the case of the petitioner:
(a)
that as per the response to the query made under the Right to
Information Act, 2005, 10,081 children died in Kalawati Saran
Children’s Hospital between the years 2008-2012;
(b) (c) that the hygienic condition in the hospital is not satisfactory;
(d)
3.
that nine out of eleven ventilators are out of order;
that the supply of medicines is not proper.
We have enquired from the counsel for the petitioner as to how many
children were admitted for treatment or otherwise treated in Kalawati Saran
Children’s Hospital between the years 2008-2012.
4.
The counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner had made no
enquiry to the said effect and has no knowledge thereof.
5.
Without knowing as to how many children were brought to Kalawati
Saran Children’s Hospital for treatment at the relevant time, it cannot be
known as to what percentage the death of 10,081 children bears to the total
children admitted/treated. Though undoubtedly the number of 10,081 does
indeed appear to be high and our heart bleeds at such a large number of
young lives being extinguished before they had a chance bloom, but we
cannot at the same time set in motion the process of the Court on such half
or less baked petitions.
A petitioner in a PIL though undoubtedly
subserving a laudable task of flagging issues of public importance which
those affected, are personally able to do but is not absolved of the duty
otherwise on a litigant approaching the Court to make out a case for setting
the legal process into motion. We are constrained to observe that inspite of
our frequent lament in this regard (see Association of Metro Commuters
Vs.
Delhi
Metro
Rail
Corporation
MANU/DE/7202/2011),
the
persons/advocates filing petitions in public interest want the Court to start a
roving and fishing enquiry, on merely their views as to the functioning of a
particular Department or Institution of the Government. The petitioner
herein falls in the same category. A person who brings a lis before the
Court, even in public interest, is required to, unless the facts speak for
themselves, satisfy the Court as to the illegality in the actions of the
State/public body affecting the public interest. A petitioner, even in a Public
Interest Litigation cannot seek commencement of a roving and fishing
inquiry. It was so held in Narmada Bachao Andolan Vs. State of Madhya
Pradesh (2011) 7 SCC 639. A litigant who is unwilling to collect/gather
facts, which in today's transparent regime are available on the asking,
cannot be allowed to waste the time of the Court. An alarm is sought to be
raised on high number of deaths in a public hospital, without even making
any queries.
It cannot be lost sight of that the persons manning and
managing such Departments/Institutions can be demoralized, if inspite of
their best efforts and commendable service to the Departments/Institutions,
without knowing all the details, allegations are raised against them and
enquiry is made, ridiculing their service.
6.
We may also mention that there are no specific averments or
particulars in the petition of the malfunctioning if any of Kalawati Saran
Children’s Hospital against which the petition is directed. No suggestions
also for improvements have been made.
The petitioner has not even
bothered to find out the Charter of the Hospital or the Rules and Regulations
of management/functioning thereof and it is not thus the case that anything
which the hospital or its management is required under the same to do, is
not being done. Without pleading all these, no case for entertaining the
petition or for issuing any writ can be said to have been made out.
7.
We have enquired from the counsel for the petitioner as to what
policy exists or what policy can be made and what are to be its parameters.
Not only is the petition at sea, the counsel also is unable to answer. He
generally states that some time bound schedule should be laid down for
repair of the hospital equipment. The counsel has however not even found
out, whether any such parameters already exist. The Division Bench of this
Court in Union of India Vs. Sh. S. Srinivasa Rao MANU/DE/7428/2011
was concerned with a direction for providing Central Government Health
Scheme (CGHS) benefits to all retired employees of National Seeds
Corporation Limited. The contention inter alia was that health is an integral
part of right to live. Relying on J.K. Sawhney Vs. Punjab National Bank
169 (2010) DLT 743, it was held that those not covered by CGHS could not
be given benefit thereof and the question as to who should be entitled to the
benefit under the Scheme is a matter of Policy and in which the Courts
cannot intervene. Further relying on State of Punjab Vs. Ram Lubhaya
Bagga (1998) 4 SCC 117 it was held that no State or Country can have
unlimited resources and provision of facilities cannot be unlimited and that
the Courts would not interfere with any opinion formed by the Government
and that though it is the constitutional obligation of the State under Article
21 of the Constitution to safeguard the life of every person and such right is
a right to lead healthy life but no law mandates that every citizen is entitled
to free medical treatment without any limitation on the amount that can be
claimed as reimbursement. Yet further relying on Dal Chand Vashisht Vs.
GNCTD (2008) VI AD (Delhi) 44 it was held that CGHS was contributory
in nature and structured on the same lines as the insurance schemes, where
the burden is shared by all the contributories collectively for the benefit of
those who may need to draw from the common pool thus created and the
benefit thereof could not be extended to others. Reliance was also placed on
Confederation of Ex-Servicemen Associations v UOI (2006) 8 SCC 399 in
which the claim of ex-defense personnel to full and free medical aid for
themselves and their families as a fundamental right was negated.
8.
The present petition has been filed without studying the legal position
and which lends us to believe that the same is more in the nature of personal
interest as a public interest activist rather than any desire to toil for the
benefit of the public.
9.
The petition is thus dismissed.
We are this time around only
cautioning the petitioner to henceforth not file petitions in public interest
without backing the same with any hard work and are thus not burdening the
petitioner with costs.
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.
CHIEF JUSTICE
MAY 27, 2014
No comments:
Post a Comment