Kerala High Court criticised a poorly drafted PIL over the Kottayam hospital collapse and framed key questions under the Clinical Establishments Act. The Court directed the State to submit a detailed affidavit on rules, inspections, and hospital standards.
Kochi: Today, on July 8, the Kerala High Court, during the hearing of a public interest litigation (PIL) related to the recent building collapse at Kottayam Medical College Hospital, raised serious concerns about the poor quality of the petition filed.
The incident led to the unfortunate death of a woman and injuries to three others after an old bathroom block attached to the Orthopaedics ward collapsed.
The case was heard by a Division Bench consisting of Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice Basant Balaji. The judges were visibly displeased with the drafting of the PIL filed by a group of human rights activists.
While the intention of the petition was to seek reforms in the management and infrastructure of government-run hospitals and medical colleges across Kerala, the Bench criticized the lack of legal clarity and preparation in the petition.
The Chief Justice orally remarked,
“This petition is carelessly drafted. These are court petitions, not pamphlets…What is this counsel? We could have dismissed the matter, the authority under the Act is not joined, there is no reference to any statutory framework. We spent 20 minutes trying to find what is the basic statutory framework. You should have done some research….Just don’t rush to courts when you read the newspapers, as advocate you should do some research.”
The Court took note of the petition’s failure to refer to the applicable laws and authorities, especially in a matter that directly involves statutory duties and public safety.
However, instead of dismissing the matter, the Court decided to frame its own legal questions for the State to address.
The High Court asked the State government to file a comprehensive counter affidavit and respond to several critical issues related to the Kerala Clinical Establishments (Registration and Regulation) Act, 2018.
These included:
- Whether rules have been framed under Section 36 concerning grievance redressal mechanisms.
- Whether rules under Section 41(1) regarding publication of details of clinical establishments have been put in place.
- Whether rules under Section 4(1)(e) read with Section 52(2)(c), which deal with periodic inspections, are being followed.
- Whether the State Council constituted under Section 3 is in line with the legal provisions.
- Whether the current grievance redressal committee, made up of three private individuals, is lawfully constituted.
- What kind of inspections were conducted by State authorities in government hospitals in the last two years.
- Whether hospital-related data is being uploaded on the online portal as per the mandate under Section 41.
- What minimum standards have been prescribed by the government under Section 13 for different types of clinical establishments.
ALSO READ: Delhi High Court Dismisses Bloomberg’s Appeal to Retain Story Targeting Zee
During the proceedings, the government counsel clarified that the Kerala Clinical Establishments (Registration and Regulation) Act, 2018, does indeed apply to government hospitals and medical colleges.
Referring to Section 2(c) of the Act, he pointed out that it includes clinical establishments
“run or managed by the government or its departments.”
He also informed the Bench that all government medical colleges have been registered under the Act.
The State’s representative told the Court that rules have already been framed, and minimum standards have been prescribed for various categories of hospitals.
These documents, he assured, would be presented before the Court during the next hearing.
The Bench, after studying the law, agreed that the 2018 Act provides a detailed and strong framework for the regulation of clinical establishments, including those run by the government.
Nevertheless, the Court felt it was necessary to obtain additional data from the authorities to better understand how the law is being implemented in practice.
ALSO READ: Bureau of Indian Standards Enhances Transparency in Hospital Billing: After SC Rap
The Court directed the petitioners’ counsel to amend their petition and correctly make the State of Kerala, through its Secretary of the Health and Family Welfare Department, and the Kerala State Council for Clinical Establishments, as respondents in the matter.
The PIL was filed by a group of advocates including Alex K John, Satheesh TP, Jilcy Jacob, Sijin Stanley, Cyriac Elias Steen, Sreekuttan M, Suresh PN, Arun KV, Ninan Thomas, Gego George, Prathitha Mariyam Thomas, and Sinil Kumar G.
Case Title:
G Samuel & Ors. v. State of Kerala & Ors.
Click Here to Read More Reports On Hospitals
