Reasonable classification shall be based on Intelligible differentia

Abhinav Mishra| Kirit P. Mehta School of Law| 19th June 2020 

Social Jurist, A Civil Rights Group v. Govt. of NCT and Anr.

Introduction:

The writ petition is regarding the order dated 1/10/2018 which categorized patients who didn’t have a valid voter ID card as non-Delhi patients and denied certain facilities for the treatment in a Govt. Hospital. The Bench Comprises of Hon’ble The Chief Justice Hon’ble and Mr. Justice V. Kameswar Rao.

Facts:

• The  writ Petition seeks quashing of an order dated 1/10/2018 issued by the Medical Director, Guru Tej Bahadur Hospital, Govt. of NCT of Delhi whereby the patient who didn’t have a valid voter ID card of Delhi were categorized as Non-Delhi patients and denied certain facilities for treatment. The petitioner contends this exclusion of Non-Delhi patients is violative of Art. 21 of the Indian Constitution. 
• Also according to the petitioner, the process of classifying patients on the basis of holding a Delhi Voter ID card or otherwise is Discriminatory and violates FR under Art. 14, 19, 21 and 47 of the Constitution of India.
• The respondent contends that there is no discrimination, that the impugned action is to priorities patients who are residents of Delhi in the matter of certain diagnostic tests and providing medicines. Shri Rahul Mehra, senior counsel, representing the Govt. of NCT rebutted the the contention of the petitioner that persons are being classified on the basis of certain impermissible and arbitrary method and  indicated that many other hospitals and institution throughout the country are following a similar procedure

Rules and laws Used:

Art. 14, 19, 21 and 47 of the Constitution of India.

Holding:

The HC after analyzing the order and various legal principles held that the act of the respondent amounts to creating a class within a class which is impermissible and any further act of non-conferring of the medical facilities is also impermissible. Thus, the bench allowed the petition and quashed the impugned circular and directed the respondents to provide facilities to all citizens.

Brief Analysis:

The HC analyzed the impugned order in the backdrop of various legal principles it referred to the SC judgment of  Soma Chakravarty v. State (2007) 5 SCC 403 in which it was held that equal treatment under similar circumstances would mean  grant of privileges confirmed and like liabilities imposed and ensuring that equals are not treated as unequal. The court argued that article 15 (2) prohibits discrimination and it was a well a settled principle that right to medical aid is an FR under Art. 21 read with Art. 39(E) and 41 of the Constitution. The court then went on to consider whether the classification of voter and non-voter is a reasonable classification or not. Which the Court held to be unreasonable because the the classification was based not on any scientific or intelligential classification but on the availability of the Voter ID card.

The court referred to another case Paschim Banga Khet Mazdoor Samity & Ors. v. State of West Bengal & Ors. in which the SC denial of emergency medical aid in a Government, hospital was classified as violating the mandate of Article 21 of the Constitution. The court also held that since there has been no justification or rationale from the Respondent for the classification it doesn’t fall under intelligible differentia. 

Conclusion:

The court held that the classification made by the respondent is not reasonable classification and that the respondent’s refusal to provide certain medical facilities to patients who don’t have a Voter ID card is violative of Art.21 of the Indian Constitution.