NAGPUR: Taking strong objection to Maharashtra government’s stand that suo motu PIL on bed shortage is ‘private interest litigation” instead of public interest, the amicus curiae on Wednesday said it was “contemptuous and mischievous”.
During the hearing of a suo motu PIL based on a TOI report, amicus Shrirang Bhandarkar further accused the government of “deliberately stalling the proceedings”, as it didn’t want to provide succour to poor patients of Covid-19, who will be treated free of cost at private hospitals.
His reaction came after the government, through senior counsel MG Bhangde, sought time to file a reply on HC’s specific query whether government could provide free treatment to Covid-19 patients admitted in private hospitals after they were acquired by it citing pandemic under the Epidemic Diseases Act and Disaster Management Act (DMA).
Pointing out that Kerala, Gujarat and Telangana had already made such provision under Disaster Management Act, 2005, Bhandarkar accused the government of using smart tactics to delay the proceedings and play mischief with the judiciary.
A division bench comprising justices Ravi Deshpande and Pushpa Ganediwala then adjourned the hearing till November 2, along with another plea filed by Viveka Hospital and Research Centre, which was clubbed.
Earlier, senior counsel Subodh Dharmadhikari and Kartik Shukul, appearing for Viveka Hospital, argued on legality of orders passed by Nagpur Municipal Corporation (NMC) for reserving 80% beds for Covid patients in private hospitals.
They contended that under Schedule 7, List 3 of the Constitution of India, legal, medical and other professions are covered. “With central acts in place that cover the medical field, the government couldn’t have supplemented those with its April 30 and May 21 notifications. Under Article 300A of the Constitution, no person can be deprived of his property. Therefore, local authorities could not have taken over or reserved beds in private hospitals,” they said.
In the last hearing, an affidavit by health services director Sanjay Jaiswal, on behalf of State Public Health Department principal secretary, contended that persons aggrieved by its April 30 and May 4 notifications are private doctors and hospital owners, who should have ideally approached HC with grievances. Through these notifications, the government had reserved beds in private hospitals for Covid-19 patients and put a ceiling on charges to be collected from them.
The judges made it clear that the only issue that troubled them was non-availability of beds in private hospitals and all infrastructural facilities, including medicines to Covid-19 patients, as a result of which deaths were occurring. “We will record our separate reasons in detail, but suffice it to say at this stage that the objection raised by senior advocate is without any substance and the same is, therefore, rejected,” they said.