Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 599 (ORI)

Nationalist Lawyers’ Forum v. State of Odisha

2014-09-17

AMITAVA ROY, B.R.SARANGI

body2014
Judgment Heard Mr. A. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the petitioners. 2. The instant petition has been laid as a Public Interest Litigation seeking annulment of the order dated 28.06.2013 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition) of the Superintendent, SCB Medical College & Hospital, Cuttack-opposite party No.3 restraining third persons, other than the attendant of the patients, to enter into the wards of the hospital and also regulating the interaction of any doctor or official of the said institution with the media without prior approval and further modulating the entry of the representatives of the media into the OPD/Casualty/Wards etc. of the Hospital without the permission of the said authority. 3. Whereas the petitioner No.1 is a Lawyers’ Organisation registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, the petitioner No.2 has introduced itself to be a social organisation working in the field of media. Apart from referring to their philanthropic contributions and initiatives in the public domain, the petitioners, while acknowledging that the SCB Medical College & Hospital is an institution of repute in the field of medical science and teaching, have pleaded that there has been deterioration in the quality of medical help and treatment to the poor and needy patients, who visit the same on day to day basis. They have stated that on the intervention of this Court a Committee has been formed to monitor the affairs of the hospital and that the Committee had been discharging a pivotal role in providing information to the public about the institution for its overall interest and well being. That the role of print media had been vital in reporting cases to secure minimum medical help has been underlined. The significant role of the well-wishers and volunteers qua the patients without their attendants has also been highlighted. That on the intervention of the media, financial help to the needy patients have also been provided has been mentioned too. It is, in this background, the decision contained in the letter dated 28.06.2013 has been denounced to be violative of fundamental rights, most particularly, the freedom of speech and expression under Article 19 (1)(a) of the Constitution of India and other fundamental rights. 4. It is, in this background, the decision contained in the letter dated 28.06.2013 has been denounced to be violative of fundamental rights, most particularly, the freedom of speech and expression under Article 19 (1)(a) of the Constitution of India and other fundamental rights. 4. In his counter, opposite party No.3 has averred that the SCB Medical College & Hospital, Cuttack (for short, hereinafter referred to as "the Hospital") is one of the premier hospitals and tertiary centres in the State where patients not only from within its territory but also from beyond visit for treatment. Apart from highlighting the initiatives and steps taken by the management of the Hospital to ensure cleanliness and hygiene in the institutional premises, the answering opposite party has also elaborated on the security system and patient care facilities. Reference has been made to the scheme, such as, Odisha State Treatment Fund (OSTF) and Rashtriya Swasthya Bima Yojana (RSBY) where under poor and needy patients are provided treatment and other facilities as per the norms contemplated thereby. That destitute patients having no attendants are provided with attendants by hiring on daily wages basis has been mentioned. It has been stated as well that the expenses towards transportation, food, medicines of such patients, within the permissible limits, are borne out of the Users Fund of the Hospital. It has been averred that for the smooth functioning of the hospital, steps have been taken to introduce Attendant Pass System to regulate the entry of the outsiders and to prevent any untoward and uncalled for situation in the greater interest of the hygiene, peace, privacy and safety of the patients. The opposite party has categorically denied the allegation of infraction of any constitutional right alleged. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners, while reiterating the above, has urged that the impugned decision has clamped unreasonable restrictions on the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under Article 19(1) (a) of the Constitution of India besides trampling the other fundamental rights, more particularly, the right of equality and equal protection of law enshrined under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 6. We have considered the pleaded facts and the documents on record as well as the argument advanced. 6. We have considered the pleaded facts and the documents on record as well as the argument advanced. While there is no reason to doubt about the laudable efforts made by the petitioners in espousing the causes as claimed by them, the instant challenge, however, does not commend for acceptance. A bare perusal of the impugned order dated 28.06.2013 presents the following salient features. (a) despite clear provision many untoward & unpleasant situations have arisen in the hospital. (b) the said situation at times obstruct and restrain the doctors and officials of the hospitals to perform their duties smoothly. (c) due to such undesirable trend and having regard to the privacy of the patients & hospital at large, entry of any third person other than the attendant of the patients into the hospital wards ought to be prevented. (d) no doctor or official is authorised to interact with the media without prior approval of the Superintendent of the hospital. (e) no representative of media is allowed to enter into the O.P.D./Casualty/Wards etc. without prior approval of the Superintendent. 7. Having regard to the reasons that have prompted the authority concerned to introduce these restrictions and also bearing in mind the nature of the institution involved and the necessity of securing and maintaining the required environment for the general wellbeing of the patients, we are of the firm opinion that the plea of violation of legal or constitutional rights thereby is unsustainable. The fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression as enumerated under Article 19 is not in absolute terms but is subject to reasonable restrictions. Moreover, having regard to the factors taken note of in imposing the restrictions, which by no means are in absolute terms the same cannot be construed to be in violation of any such rights. 8. The impugned order is a conscious step to prevent any untoward and unwarranted situation in the hospital premises resulting in obstruction to the smooth functioning of the doctors and officials of the hospital to the detriment of the administration of the system and causing health hazards and intrusion into the privacy of the patients. The regulation on any doctor and official of the hospital to interact with the media and the entry of the representatives of the media into the OPD/Casualty/Wards etc. of the hospital is also not absolute and is subject to approval/permission of the Superintendent. The regulation on any doctor and official of the hospital to interact with the media and the entry of the representatives of the media into the OPD/Casualty/Wards etc. of the hospital is also not absolute and is subject to approval/permission of the Superintendent. In the overall setting, in which the decision had been taken, we are of the comprehension that the same cannot be repudiated to be in any infraction of any legal or constitutional right as asserted by the petitioners. 9. It need not be overemphasized that hospital is a place for administering quality treatment and medical attention to the ill and ailing at times involving emergent and complex procedures requiring undivided focus and dedicated attention with essential skill and expertise. A peaceful, serene and conducive environment for the attending doctors and patients is therefore an uncompromising need. As it has been pleaded by the petitioner, there is a Committee in place maintaining its vigil over the affairs of the hospital. To reiterate, entry of any patient or his/her attendant has not been prohibited to the hospital by the impugned order. Thereby no right of the sick and the person accompanying him/her as attendant has been either denied or curtailed by the decision. Needless to say, hospital is an institution which is primarily meant for them and the doctors as well as those who administer the management thereof. The others as a corollary do provide additional presence. In this view of the matter, the restraint on doctors in their interaction with the media or the entry of media personnel to the OPD/Casualty/Wards etc. without the prior approval of the Superintendent of the hospital, in our estimate, cannot by any means be construed to be illegal, unauthorised or arbitrary. The decision has been taken analyzing all relevant considerations for the best interest of the patients and thus cannot be faulted with. 10. Noticeably, the petitioners, before approaching this Court, have not addressed any representation before the concerned authority highlighting their reservation. On that count also the present petition cannot be said to be in accordance with law and as per the requirement of Orissa High Court Public Interest Litigation Rules, 2010. 11. To reiterate, the exigencies taken note of in effecting the arrangements made by the order dated 28.6.2013 are in over all public interest and thus does not warrant any interference as sought for. 11. To reiterate, the exigencies taken note of in effecting the arrangements made by the order dated 28.6.2013 are in over all public interest and thus does not warrant any interference as sought for. The petitioner lacks in merit and is dismissed.