Is Allahabad HC's 'Ram Bharose' Remark justified: SC to examine how far can courts venture into COVID management domain
New Delhi: Displeased with the Allahabad High Court's earlier "Ram Bharose" comment to define the rural healthcare facilities in Uttar Pradesh, the Supreme Court is now going to examine how far can constitutional courts venture into issues that are exclusively in the domain of executive related to COVID-19 management. This comes after the Uttar Pradesh Government defended itself...
New Delhi: Displeased with the Allahabad High Court's earlier "Ram Bharose" comment to define the rural healthcare facilities in Uttar Pradesh, the Supreme Court is now going to examine how far can constitutional courts venture into issues that are exclusively in the domain of executive related to COVID-19 management.
This comes after the Uttar Pradesh Government defended itself before the Apex Court against the "Ram Bharose" comment, by filing affidavit regarding the matter.
The state government in its affidavit has said that it has a total of 2200 basic life support ambulances in addition to 250 advanced life support ambulances.
It has said that there are 298 community health centres in the state and 177 oxygen concentrators have been provided to 273 such centres and it is purchasing over 20,000 oxygen concentrators.
The top court said that the courts need to respect the demarcation of power given under the constitution even though the objective was in fairness to everybody. It said that the court will examine whether at all the Allahabad High Court needed to tread in this arena and whether it's 'Ram Bharose' comment was justified.
The bench was quoted saying by PTI, "What we want to lay down is how far a constitutional court can venture into an issue like this. Whether at all the High Court needed to tread on this arena? Despite the objective being in fairness to everybody we have to respect the demarcation. How far 'Ram Bharose' comments justified".
The remarks of a bench of Justices Vineet Saran and Dinesh Maheshwari came while hearing an appeal against the Allahabad High Court order relating to management of the COVID-19 situation in Uttar Pradesh in which it had said that the entire healthcare system in villages and small cities of the state was "Ram bharose" (at God''s mercy).
Medical Dialogues had earlier reported that pointing out the casual approach and carelessness in the performance of medical professionals in a case involving the death of a patient in Meerut Medical College, Allahabad High Court had earlier mentioned that the incident portrays the fragile health infrastructure in the State and the medical system pertaining to the smaller cities and villages can only be taken to be like a famous Hindi saying 'Ram Bharose'.
"If this is the state of affairs of treatment at medical College in the city like Meerut then the entire medical system of the State pertaining to the smaller cities and villages can only be taken to be like a famous Hindi saying 'Ram Bharose'," the High Court had earlier remarked.
Later the Supreme Court had stayed the Allahabad High Court order holding that high courts should refrain from passing directions not implementable.
At the previous hearing Solicitor-General Tushar Mehta had requested the top court to pass directions so that the matters related to the Covid management were heard by a bench comprising of the Chief Justice to maintain uniformity of directions.
Refusing to pass such order, the top court had observed, "Be that as it may, the constitution of a bench is a prerogative of Chief Justice, who is a master of roster and he may consider the same and pass appropriate orders."
However, it had also noted earlier that, "There are several policy decisions which have benefits of expert opinion and there are some issues of grave importance. It is desirable that these matters including the instant matter should be heard by a bench of chief justice."
During the hearing of the case on Wednesday, the top court asked Tushar Mehta about the status of the case to which he replied that a bench of acting chief justice in the high court is hearing the case now.
Mehta said that the court may set aside the order of the High Court.
The bench said that in its earlier order it had already stated that directions of the High Court should be treated as suggestions and therefore no formal set aside is required.
It told Mehta that his assistance is required in collating all the orders passed by the court in the case and at present since High Court is dealing with the matter, this court does not intend to take it up.
The top court then went on to discuss the issue of whether the High Court could pass directions or give suggestions which amount to Executive decisions.
At this outset, Justice Saran said "There were questions like how many ambulances are there, how many oxygen beds are there. We don''t want to comment on these questions. It's not that you cannot give suggestions but how can you ask local companies to take vaccine formula and manufacture it? How can such direction be given?"
Justice Maheshwari also said that there are certain issues which are the domain of the executive and moreover at the time of crisis everybody has to proceed cautiously and have to take note of what is to be done by whom.
"We may have 110 suggestions but can we make it part of an order? We have to remember that we are a constitutional court", Justice Maheshwari said, adding that collective efforts are needed at the time of crisis, but good intent in itself does not give everybody a right to enter into other's arena.
The bench said that although there cannot be a straightjacket formula for every problem but there are certain norms within which every institution works.
Meanwhile, Senior advocate Nidesh Gupta, who has been appointed as amicus curiae in the matter, stated that the High Court has said that viability of its directions has to be seen by the State.
He said that the court may ask the Uttar Pradesh government to do what it is proposing to do before the third wave as it is a lull before the storm.
The bench said that it will take up the matter on August 12 and the High Court can continue hearing the case.