The Delhi High Court on Monday gave relief to four major private hospitals in the capital and quashed orders of the Land and Development Office (L&DO), Ministry of Urban Development and the Delhi government that had made it mandatory for the hospitals them to provide free treatment to persons from Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) category.

Moolchand Hospital, St Stephen?s Hospital, Rockland Hospital and the Sitaram Bhartia Institute of Science and Reasearch had approached the High Court in 2012 against orders issued by the Delhi government and the L&DO which amended the provisions of the lease granted to the hospitals. The orders inserted a provision in the lease making it mandatory for the hospitals to give free treatment to EWS patients in both the out-patient and in-patient departments.

The order for free treatment had been issued by the government following directions from the High Court and the Supreme Court to provide free treatment to the poor. At the time, the government had decided that all hospitals, which had received land at a concessional rate and had the provisions in their lease deeds, would be mandated to provide free treatment to EWS patients up to 25 per cent in OPD and 10 percent in the IPD.

According to advocate Ashok Agarwal, who had filed the case that led to the freeship being made mandatory, this judgment is likely to affect over 20 private hospitals of a total of 47. Apart from the four petitioner hospitals, Ganga Ram Hospital had also moved court against the government order, but had later withdrawn the plea.

The hospitals had argued that the government could not issue such orders since they had purchased the land at market rates and the original lease deeds for the land did not contain the freeship clause.

?The fundamental right of the hospitals to do business cannot be taken away by an executive order and it can be done only by enacting a law,? the hospitals had argued

The court of Justices S Ravindra Bhat and R V Easwar accepted the hospitals? arguments, adding that the conditions of the lease could have been modified only if the existing lease deeds or the statute under which they were created had a condition that they could be amended.

?Whilst the state?s effort to maximise area of public health system at no cost or minimum cost is undeniably in public interest, such objective has to be achieved through the route of legislation. In the present case, the route taken by the respondent is not accurate…,? the court said.

?This court only seeks to emphasise that while any endeavour to bring the directive principle (to provide free treatment to poor) to fruition is laudable, such effort must be by way of a legislation, especially when the rights guaranteed under part III of the Constitution are likely to be infringed through such actions,? said the court.

Central government counsel Jatan Singh said the government was likely to contest the judgment before the Supreme Court since the EWS freeship had been given under direction from the High Court and the Supreme Court.