Delhi govt gets 3 months to decide if SC order covers Rajiv Gandhi Cancer Hospital
Delhi High Court
on Wednesday gave three months' time to Delhi govt to decide if a 2018 landmark Supreme Court verdict applies to Rajiv Gandhi Cancer Hospital.
The apex court had ruled that private hospitals in the city, allotted land at subsidised rates, could not do away with the mandatory requirement of providing free treatment to 25% OPD and 10% IPD patients from the economically weaker section (EWS) category.
A bench of Chief Justice DK Upadhyay and Justice Tushar Rao Gedella asked the govt to take a call on the issue after it transpired that soon after the verdict, the authorities concerned wrote to the hospital asking it to reserve beds for EWS patients. However, the hospital wrote back that it wasn't covered by the SC ruling as it was not similarly placed as other private hospitals.
You Can Also Check:
Delhi AQI
|
Weather in Delhi
|
Bank Holidays in Delhi
|
Public Holidays in Delhi
To be sure, the hospital informed the high court on Wednesday that since March 1, 2023, it had extended free treatment to 25% OPD and 10% IPD patients from the EWS category.
The high court was hearing a petition seeking action against the cancer hospital for not providing free treatment as per the mandate issued by Supreme Court against hospitals allotted land by the govt at subsidised rates, which must provide free treatment to EWS category patients.
The hospital, in Feb 2023, on a separate public interest litigation, had assured the court that it would provide free treatment to EWS patients, leading the court to dispose of the plea.
The petitioner alleged that the hospital had made unwarranted profits during the last two decades by not providing all free treatment to EWS patients and was, therefore, liable to make good to society by paying such an amount of unwarranted profit to the govt.
While the plea alleged that the hospital violated the high court's 2007 order and the apex court's July 9, 2018 verdict, the hospital argued it was not covered by the verdict. In the 2007 judgement, the high court first directed that all the 20 hospitals, which were party to the matter, and other identically situated hospitals would have to strictly comply with the terms of free patient treatment to indigent/poor patients.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
7 hours ago
- Hindustan Times
SC lifts HC stay, paves way for admission process to restart in MP's paramedical courses
New Delhi, The Supreme Court on Friday paved the way for restarting the admission process in paramedical courses for the academic years 2023–24 and 2024–25 in Madhya Pradesh. SC lifts HC stay, paves way for admission process to restart in MP's paramedical courses On July 16, a division bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court at Jabalpur stayed the ongoing recognition and admission process for paramedical courses for 2023–24 and 2024–25 by taking note of a plea filed by the law students' association. The MP High Court had stayed the admission process in paramedical courses after taking note of a plea filed by the law students' association. A top court bench comprising Chief Justice B R Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran was apprised by senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for the registrar of Madhya Pradesh Paramedical Council, that such a drastic order was passed by the high court on a petition filed by some law students having no locus in the matter. The senior lawyer referred to COVID-19 pandemic and said that certain paramedical courses in the states could not begin on time due to the pandemic. He said the registrar of the Paramedical Council grants recognition to institutions and regulates the admission process and the impugned order of the high court has brought everything to a standstill. "How can law students file such a petition?" the CJI asked, and stayed the high court order. The CJI also issued notices to the state government and others on the plea of the Paramedical Council. The high court stay order came following a move to permit 166 paramedical institutions to begin courses for the 2023–24 academic year, despite granting recognition to these institutions only in 2025. The high court found the timeline "illogical" and questioned how institutions could start academic sessions for 2023–24 in the year 2025 when they did not even exist at the time the courses were supposed to commence. It examined the order of July 14 of the Paramedical Council granting permission to 166 institutions to offer courses for 2023–24. However, the high court pointed out that the courses were originally scheduled to run from November 2023 to October 2024 and that the last date for institutions to apply for recognition was December 31, 2023. The bench expressed strong disapproval of the retrospective recognition, stating, "It belies all logic, sensibility and questions the sanity of a reasonable man how these institutions could be allowed to start the course for the year 2023-24 in the year 2025." This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.
Indian Express
16 hours ago
- Indian Express
Before the Supreme Court, questions over the age cap in surrogacy law
The Supreme Court this week reserved its verdict in a clutch of petitions challenging the age cap for couples seeking to have a child through surrogacy, especially those couples who had started the process before the current law on this matter was enacted by Parliament. The Assisted Reproductive Technology (Regulation) Act, 2021 and the Surrogacy (Regulation) Act, 2021, prescribe the legal framework for surrogacy. Together, these laws lay down age limits on those intending to have a child through surrogacy. The intending woman, if married, must be between 23 and 50 years of age; fathers must be between 26 and 55, and single women must be between the ages of 35 and 45 years. The case before SC Several writ petitions have been filed before the Supreme Court by couples who find themselves stuck in the process due to a change in the law on surrogacy. Essentially, they had begun their treatment before the enactment of the law, but the new law's age limits make them ineligible for surrogacy. A Supreme Court Bench comprising Justices B V Nagarathna and K V Viswanathan heard three petitions filed by couples requesting eligibility certificates under the Surrogacy Act, arguing that they had initiated the process before the Act was brought in. In one of the petitions, the husband is 62 years old, while the wife is about 56 years old. The couple lost their only child in 2018 and, desirous of having another child, began fertility procedures in 2019. After facing delays due to the disruptions induced by the COVID-19 pandemic, they were able to eventually arrange for an embryo transfer in early 2022. The petition states that their pregnancy was unsuccessful — and by the time they sought to proceed with another transfer, they had crossed the age limit laid down by the surrogacy law. The petitioners argued that the retrospective application of these conditions was unreasonable, especially when medical procedures were already underway at the time the Act came into force. They also submitted that the age limit created an unreasonable classification, violating Article 14 of the Constitution, and also interfered with reproductive autonomy, which is a facet of Article 21, which protects personal liberty. Regulatory laws usually offer transitional safeguards for those navigating compliance during a legislative shift. These provisions are called 'grandfather clauses', which 'grandfather in' certain existing situations. The Surrogacy Act has no such transitional clauses. The petitioner's challenge also raised broader concerns, including the right of single, unmarried women to pursue parenthood through surrogacy, a choice that the current law does not accommodate. Provisions of the law The Surrogacy (Regulation) Act, 2021, and the Assisted Reproductive Technology (Regulation) Act, 2021, enacted in January 2022, together ban commercial surrogacy and allow only altruistic surrogacy. According to the government, this change in law was intended to prevent the commodification of reproductive labour and to impose procedural safeguards to ensure that surrogacy is used only in cases of medical necessity. The Surrogacy (Regulation) Act lays down eligibility conditions for couples intending to seek surrogacy. The law states that for intending couples, the woman must be between 23 and 50 years of age, and the man between 26 and 55 years. The process requires the couple to obtain a certificate of essentiality, which includes proof of infertility, a court order establishing parentage and custody, and insurance for the surrogate. Single women are eligible only if they are widows or divorcees between the ages of 35 to 45. This is under challenge before the SC on the grounds that the definition of single women excluding unmarried women is arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. The SC has not taken up this issue in the current batch of petitions for adjudication. Court's questions The government has defended the age restrictions on grounds of medical safety. It has said that the statutory age caps are based on recommendations from medical experts, and align with practices in reproductive health. Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Aishwarya Bhati argued that the age limits align with natural reproductive timelines, which she said is necessary for protecting the welface of the child. When the ASG mentioned the risks associated with geriatric pregnancies, Justice Nagarathna pointed out that some couples 'will take the risk' anyway. Essentially, the Bench asked why surrogacy as an option must be outlawed for an older couple when natural geriatric pregnancies are not outlawed. The ASG responded that advanced parental age influences both an unborn child's health through genetic and epigenetic changes, and also the filial love that a child requires for 20 years of their life. 'Rational nexus to the object of the Act is absent by having this age bar, especially as there is a void regarding not taking care of the couples who have already commenced. Genuine intending couples who had commenced surrogacy, the Act doesn't care for them and puts an embargo. Stop, no children! Look how harsh it is,' Justice Nagarathna said, emphasising that the Surrogacy Act's intent is to prevent commercial surrogacy, not genuine parenthood.
The Hindu
a day ago
- The Hindu
Maharashtra government withdraws implementation of 10% EWS quota in private medical colleges
The Maharashtra government withdrew its decision to implement a 10% Economically Weaker Section (EWS) quota in private medical colleges, stating that the reservation will be applicable only if the Central Government or the respective Council increases the existing seats. The State Medical Education & Drugs Department on Wednesday (July 30, 2025) stated that for the implementation of 10% EWS reservation, the Central government has to compensate for the reservation impact on other category seats. 'For MBBS/BDS/BAMS/BHMS and BUMS courses, this reservation will be applicable only if the central Government / respective council increases existing seats. For courses other than MBBS/ BDS/ BAMS/ BHMS and BUMS courses, 10% EWS reservation will be applicable on available seats,' said Dileep Sardesai, Commissioner and Competent Authority, State Common Entrance Test Cell in the notification. The move comes after the government faced backlash from medical aspirants and their parents over the 10% EWS quota implementation in the private medical colleges. On July 23, CET cell released an information brochure for NEET UG 2025, mentioning a 10% quota in private medical colleges. Association of private medical colleges also wrote to Medical Education Minister Hassan Mushrif, opposing the decision.
