In a significant legal development, the Supreme Court stayed a Delhi High Court order directing the Delhi government to sign a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with the Central government for implementing the PM-Ayushman Bharat Health Infrastructure Mission (PM-ABHIM) in the capital. This case highlights the intersection of health policy, governance, and constitutional jurisdiction, offering a valuable study for legal practitioners and policymakers.
Background: Delhi High Court’s Order
The Delhi High Court’s order originated from a suo motu Public Interest Litigation (PIL) initiated in 2017. The case focused on the insufficient ICU beds and ventilator facilities in Delhi’s government hospitals. The Court observed that 33 other States and Union Territories had already implemented PM-ABHIM, and Delhi’s non-participation deprived its residents of crucial funds and infrastructure improvements.
The High Court directed the Delhi government to sign the MoU by January 5, stating that implementing the scheme was essential to address medical infrastructure gaps. The Court emphasized that public welfare should take precedence, even overriding potential administrative delays caused by the Model Code of Conduct during elections.
Supreme Court’s Stay Order
The Delhi government challenged this directive in the Supreme Court, raising crucial constitutional and policy arguments. Represented by Senior Advocate Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, the Delhi government argued:
- Jurisdictional Overreach: Health is a State subject under the Constitution. Dr. Singhvi contended that the Centre’s powers in State matters are limited to entries such as public order, police, and land (Entries 1, 2, and 18 in the State List). The High Court’s directive, he argued, encroached upon the Delhi government’s autonomy.
- Policy Decision: Signing the MoU would obligate the Delhi government to contribute 40% of capital expenditure without receiving assistance for operational costs. The Delhi government also claimed that its existing health schemes provided broader coverage compared to PM-ABHIM.
After hearing these submissions, a Supreme Court bench comprising Justices BR Gavai and AG Masih stayed the High Court’s order and sought the Centre’s response.
Legal and Policy Implications
This case raises several important legal and policy questions:
- Federalism and Jurisdiction: The tussle between the Centre and the Delhi government underscores the challenges of federal governance, particularly in health policy. The High Court’s directive raises questions about the judiciary’s role in influencing State policy decisions.
- Resource Allocation: The financial implications of PM-ABHIM, including the division of capital and operational costs, reveal the complexities in implementing centrally-sponsored schemes in resource-constrained environments.
- Judiciary’s Role in Policy: The case highlights the judiciary’s active role in addressing infrastructure gaps in critical sectors like health. However, it also brings into focus the balance between judicial intervention and executive autonomy.
Key Takeaways for Legal Practitioners
For legal professionals and scholars, this case serves as a critical example of how governance and constitutional principles intersect with public welfare. Lawyers specializing in constitutional law, public policy, and health law should monitor this case closely, as its outcome could set significant precedents.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s intervention in staying the High Court’s directive ensures a pause in the unfolding constitutional debate over jurisdiction, policy autonomy, and health infrastructure. While the final judgment remains pending, this case serves as a reminder of the delicate balance between governance and judicial oversight in shaping India’s health policies.
#SupremeCourt #HealthLaw #PublicPolicy #ConstitutionalLaw #Federalism #AyushmanBharat #LegalInsights #DelhiGovernment
lawrota.com 
Leave a reply to Today is Martin Luther King’s Day. – celebchai.com Cancel reply