Deepak Roshan, J.

1. Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties.

2. The present writ petition has been filed in purported public interest, seeking the following reliefs:-

                  (i) For issuance of Writ(s)/order(s)/direction(s) and particularly a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding and direction upon the respondents and especially respondent Civil Surgeon Ranchi, to ensure strict compliance of the Clinical Establishments Act, 2010 and take immediate and strict action as per law for non-fulfillment of provisions of the said act.

                  (ii) For issuance of Writ(s)/order(s)/direction(s) and particularly a writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding upon the respondents and especially respondent Civil Surgeon Ranchi to take-action upon the report submitted by Magistrate Sadar Ranchi with respect to the death of the petitioner's father on 15/10/2017, on act of sheer negligence on the part of entire management, doctors and nurses of Medanta Hospital Ranchi.

                  (iii) For issuance of Writ(s)/order(s)/direction(s) and particularly a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding upon the respondents to immediately and forthwith holding enquiry in respect to ignore the complaints of bonafide citizen with respect to legalities been committed by respondent authority.

                  (iv) For issuance of Writ(s)/order(s)/direction(s) and particularly a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding upon the respondents to hold an enquiry in respect to illegal and fraudulent committing cyber-crime and misusing the petitioner's email ID to close the RTI filed in PMO Office.

                  (v) For issuance of Writ(s)/order(s)/direction(s) and particularly a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding and direction upon the respondents to ensure that all the Clinical Establishments in the State of Jharkhand are directed to provide immediately copies of all documents to the patient's attendants/representative on discharge to avoid any foul play.

3. This petition has been filed in the backdrop of the fact that the petitioner’s father was suffering from Parkinson’s disease (Stage III– IV) and was undergoing treatment for the same in Bhubaneswar, Odisha. On 05.10.2017, the petitioner’s father suffered injuries following a fall at his residence in Ranchi. He was initially taken to the Rajendra Institute of Medical Sciences (RIMS), Ranchi, at approximately 8:00 a.m., where he received primary treatment by way of a Diazepam injection. However, it is the petitioner’s case that until 9:45 a.m., the medical staff at RIMS, Ranchi, failed to provide adequate care, specifically neglecting to dress his wounds or provide necessary medical services. Aggrieved by the perceived negligence and dissatisfied with the services at RIMS, the petitioner shifted his father to Medanta Hospital, Ranchi, at approximately 10:10 a.m. on the same day.

4. Furthermore, the petitioner has pleaded that on 06.10.2017, being dissatisfied with the treatment offered at Medanta, Ranchi, he requested the hospital to discharge his father to facilitate a transfer to another medical facility for treatment. Accordingly, the petitioner’s father was discharged from Medanta Hospital, Ranchi, at approximately 05:00 p.m. on the same day, following the intervention of the Head of the Hospital, Dr. Sharad Agarwal.

5. Subsequently, the petitioner has further pleaded that he took his father home, however, on 09.10.2017, when the patient ceased taking food, the petitioner consulted Dr. S.S. Jena of Care Hospital, Bhubaneswar, under whose observation the petitioner’s father had been undergoing treatment. Upon such consultation, the doctor advised the petitioner to once again admit his father to a hospital for further medical care.

6. Thereafter, the petitioner has detailed the events occurring between 10.10.2017 and 15.10.2017, during which time he consulted several doctors and visited various medical facilities. Specifically, the petitioner’s father was readmitted to Medanta Hospital on 10.10.2017, where further medical treatment was administered. Ultimately, the petitioner has pleaded that his father passed away on 15.10.2017 in the same hospital itself.

7. Advancing his grievances, the petitioner has filed complaints with various authorities, including the police, alleging medical negligence on the part of several hospitals and doctors. Finally, the petitioner, claiming to have secured no relief from these agencies, has instituted the present petition in purported “public interest.”

8. Presumably, as one of the principal issues raised by the petitioner pertained to the non-implementation of the Clinical Establishments (Registration and Regulation) Act, 2010, the present matter was categorized and treated as a “Public Interest Litigation.”

9. As such, the reliefs under prayer Clauses (ii) and (iv) cannot be said to be appropriate reliefs in a Public Interest Litigation. These reliefs are entirely personal to the petitioner and, therefore, we do not propose to deal in detail with the arguments concerning those reliefs. Nevertheless, we note that the consideration of relief in terms of prayer Clause (ii) would involve investigation into seriously disputed questions of fact. Furthermore, we note that pursuant to the petitioner’s complaint about medical negligence, a Medical Board was constituted by the Medical Superintendent, RIMS, Ranchi, vide communication No. 2114 dated 01.09.2018. The said Medical Board comprised experts and Heads of the Departments from the fields of Urology, Medicine, Neurosurgery, and Surgery.

10. The Medical Board submitted a report dated 08.11.2018 observing, inter alia, the following:-

                  “ at the time of admission of late Barho Prasad, he was not in a good condition. Report showed features of septicemia and renal dysfunction. Additionally, he had upper G.I. bleeding which compounded pre-existing co-morbidities of old operated Sub Dural haematoma with hypertension, parkinsonism and seizure disorder. As per records, proper treatment has been given along with necessary investigations done time to time and treated accordingly as per standard protocols.”

11. Therefore, considering that the issue of alleged medical negligence would involve an investigation into seriously disputed questions of fact and in view of the above-referred report of the Medical Board dated 08.11.2018, we decline relief in terms of prayer Clause (ii) of this petition. However, we clarify that this will not, in any manner, preclude the petitioner from filing appropriate proceedings before the appropriate forum for pursuing his grievance, should the petitioner wish to do so. The observations in this order are in no manner intended to preclude the petitioner from pursuing his grievance before the appropriate forum and establishing his case regarding medical negligence, a claim for compensation, or other ancillary reliefs.

12. Since the petitioner has been pursuing this petition since 16.08.2019, it will be open to the petitioner to seek exclusion of the period between the date of institution of this petition and its disposal for the purposes of limitation. This is, of course, subject to any valid defenses that the respondents may have, not only on the merits but also on the issue of limitation.

13. Insofar as the relief under Clause (iv) is concerned, we note that it will not be possible for us to issue a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to hold an inquiry in respect of the alleged “illegal and fraudulent committing of cybercrime and misusing the petitioner’s email ID to close the RTI filed in the PMO Office.” This is because, within the scope of the present Public Interest Litigation, it is not feasible for this Court to investigate such individual allegations or conclude whether a cybercrime was indeed committed by misusing the petitioner’s email ID or otherwise.

14. Apart from this, as this remains a private grievance, any inquiry into such matters would involve the investigation of disputed questions of fact. Therefore, we decline to grant relief in terms of prayer Clause (iv) of the petition. However, we clarify that the refusal to grant relief in terms of prayer Clause (iv) will not preclude the petitioner from availing ordinary remedies, as opposed to the extraordinary remedy of invoking this Court’s Writ or Public Interest jurisdiction, which may include filing complaints before the jurisdictional magistrate or approaching the authorities under the Information Technology Act, 2000.

15. Thus, while we decline the reliefs sought under prayer Clauses (ii) and (iv) of this petition, we do so with the clarification that such denial shall not affect the petitioner’s right to resort to alternate remedies available under the law. Furthermore, all rival contentions on the merits and facts of the matter are left open for adjudication before the appropriate forum.

16. As regards the non-implementation of the 2010 Act, we note that this Court has treated the petitioner’s grievance as one falling within the realm of “public interest.” From time to time, several orders were passed by Coordinate Benches of this Court requiring the State and other authorities to report on the status of compliance. While the State and other authorities have filed affidavits in this petition, upon perusal of the same, we are not entirely satisfied with the current status of compliance.

17. The 2010 Act is a central legislation which was made applicable, in the first instance, to the States of Arunachal Pradesh, Himachal Pradesh, Mizoram, Sikkim, and the Union Territories. The Act provides that it shall apply to such other States which adopt the same by way of a resolution passed in that behalf under Clause (1) of Article 252 of the Constitution.

18. In this context, it is a matter of record that the State Government adopted the Clinical Establishments Act, 2010, in February 2012. Following this adoption, in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 51 of the 2010 Act, the State Government framed the Jharkhand State Clinical Establishments (Registration and Regulation) Rules, 2013, which were subsequently notified in May 2013. These Rules, enacted to provide better provisions for medical healthcare and regulate clinical establishments, extend to the entirety of the State and are applicable to all clinical establishments within the State of Jharkhand.

19. The Statement of Object and reasons for the 2010 Act, reads as follows:-

                  “At present, the supervision and regulation of the quality of services provided by the health care delivery system to the people by both public and private sectors has largely remained a contentious and therefore, unresolved issue. The current structure of the health care delivery system does not provide enough incentives for improvement in efficiency. The private sector health care delivery system in India has remained largely unregulated and uncontrolled. Problems range from inadequate and inappropriate treatment, excessive use of higher technologies, and wasting of scarce resources to serious problems of medical malpractice and negligence.

                  2. Despite many State Legislatures having enacted laws for regulating health care providers, the general perception is that current regulatory process for health care providers in India is inadequate or not responsive to ensure health care services of acceptable quality and prevent negligence. Concerns about how to improve health care quality have continued to be frequently raised by the general public and a wide variety of stakeholders, including Government, professional associations, private providers, agencies financing health care, National Human Rights Commission and also by judiciary.

                  3. Accordingly, a need has long been felt for a central legislation for ensuring uniform standards of facilities and services by the clinical establishments throughout the State where the Legislative Assemblies have passed resolutions under article 252 of the Constitution and the Union territories and the States which may adopt the legislation by such resolutions.

                  4. The salient features of the proposed legislation, inter alia, are as follows:—

                  (i) the proposed legislation provides for the constitution of a National Council consisting of representatives of the Dental Council of India, the Nursing Council of India, the Pharmacy Council of India, the Indian Medicines representing the Ayurveda, Siddha, Unani and Homoeopathy systems, the Indian Medical Associations, the Bureau of Indian Standards, the Zonal Councils set up under the States Reorganisation Act, 1956, the North Eastern Council, etc.;

                  (ii) the function of the National Council shall be to determine the standards for clinical establishments, classify the clinical establishment into different categories, develop the minimum standards and their periodic review, compile, maintain and update a national register of clinical establishments, perform any other function determined by the Central Government, from time to time;

                  (iii) the concerned State Government shall designate the Director of Health Services or any other officer subordinate to him as the Registrar of clinical establishments. The State Registrar of clinical establishments shall compile and update the State register of clinical establishments and further send the same in digital format for updating the national register;

                  (iv) the concerned State Government shall, by notification, designate the District Health Officer or the Chief Medical Officer as district registering authority for registration of clinical establishments;

                  (v) no person shall carry on a clinical establishment unless it has been registered in accordance with the provisions of the proposed Bill. The legislation would not apply to the clinical establishments of the Armed Forces;

                  (vi) it is proposed that clinical establishments already in existence may be allowed for provisional registration to carry out their business. There shall be no prior enquiry for provisional registration. But the Authority shall have power to make enquiry in accordance with such rules as may be prescribed;

                  (vii) the clinical establishment having provisional registration shall fulfil the standards which may be notified for the purpose. The provisional certificate shall not be granted or renewed beyond a period of three years from the date of notification of standards;

                  (viii) any clinical establishment may apply for permanent registration in such form and shall pay such fee as may be prescribed by the State Government. A detailed procedure for permanent registration is being provided in the proposed legislation;

                  (ix) the authority shall have power to cancel the registration of the clinical establishment which fails to comply with the conditions prescribed by the Central Government. The authority shall have power to inspect a registered clinical establishment. Any person aggrieved by an order of the registering authority shall prefer an appeal to the State Government;

                  (x) there shall be register of clinical establishments at the district level, State level and the National level;

                  (xi) if any person contravenes any provisions of the proposed legislation or any rules made thereunder, he shall be punished with fine. The maximum penalty being provided is rupees five lakh.

                  5. Legislation in respect of "Public health and sanitation, hospitals and dispensaries" are relatable to Entry 6 of List II-State List in the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution and Parliament has no power to make a law in the State (apart from the provisions of articles 249, 250 and 252 of the Constitution) under article 252 of the Constitution where the legislatures of two or more States pass resolutions in pursuance of article 252 of the Constitution empowering Parliament to pass the necessary legislation on the subject, a Bill may be introduced in Parliament. The legislatures of the States of Arunachal Pradesh, Himachal Pradesh, Mizoram and Sikkim have passed such resolutions. The Bill is intended to give effect to the resolutions passed by the legislatures of the aforesaid States and to make also provisions in respect to Union territories.”

20. Section 2(c) of the said act, defines “clinical establishment” and the same reads as follows:-

                  “(c) “clinical establishment” means—

                  (i) a hospital, maternity home, nursing home, dispensary, clinic, sanatorium or an institution by whatever name called that offers services, facilities requiring diagnosis, treatment or care for illness, injury, deformity, abnormality or pregnancy in any recognised system of medicine established and administered or maintained by any person or body of persons, whether incorporated or not; or

                  (ii) a place established as an independent entity or part of an establishment referred to in sub-clause (i), in connection with the diagnosis or treatment of diseases where pathological, bacteriological, genetic, radiological, chemical, biological investigations or other diagnostic or investigative services with the aid of laboratory or other medical equipment, are usually carried on, established and administered or maintained by any person or body of persons, whether incorporated or not, and shall include a clinical establishment owned, controlled or managed by—

                  (a) the Government or a department of the Government;

                  (b) a trust, whether public or private;

                  (c) a corporation (including a society) registered under a Central, Provincial or State Act, whether or not owned by the Government;

                  (d) a local authority; and

                  (e) a single doctor, but does not include the clinical establishments owned, controlled or managed by the Armed Forces.

                  Explanation.—For the purpose of this clause “Armed Forces” means the forces constituted under the Army Act, 1950 (46 of 1950) , the Air Force Act, 1950 (45 of 1950) and the Navy Act, 1957 (62 of 1957);

21. Section 8 of the 2010 Act mandates that every State Government shall, by notification, constitute a State Council for clinical establishments. The composition of the State Council and the functions that it shall perform are specifically delineated under the said Section 8 of the 2010 Act. Section 9 mandates that it shall be the responsibility of the State Council for Clinical Establishments to compile and update the State Register and to provide monthly returns in digital format to update the National Register.

22. Correspondingly, Section 10 of the 2010 Act provides that the State Government shall, by notification, set up an authority to be called the District Registering Authority for each district for the registration of clinical establishments. The composition of this Authority is to consist of the following members, namely,

                  (a) District Collector - Chairperson;

                  (b) District Health Officer- Convenor;

                  (c) Three members with such qualifications and on such terms and conditions as may be prescribed by the Central Government.

23. Additionally, Section 11 provides that no person shall run a clinical establishment unless it has been duly registered in accordance with the provisions of this Act.

24. Section 12 provides for the conditions for registration and the same reads as follows:-

                  “12. Condition for registration.—(1) For registration and continuation, every clinical establishment shall fulfil the following conditions, namely:—

                  (i) the minimum standards of facilities and services as may be prescribed;

                  (ii) the minimum requirement of personnel as may be prescribed;

                  (iii) provisions for maintenance of records and reporting as may be prescribed;

                  (iv) such other conditions as may be prescribed.

                  (2) The clinical establishment shall undertake to provide within the staff and facilities available, such medical examination and treatment as may be required to stabilise the emergency medical condition of any individual who comes or is brought to such clinical establishment.”

25. Chapter IV of the 2010 Act provides for the procedure for registration, which includes, inter alia, the application for a provisional certificate of registration, the validity of provisional registration, and the display of the certificate of registration.

26. Under Section 26 of the 2010 Act, provision is made for the display of information for the purpose of filing objections. Once the prescribed requirements are fulfilled, Section 28 provides for the permanent registration of clinical establishments. To ensure continued compliance, Section 33 empowers the authorities to conduct inspections of registered clinical establishments.

27. There are provisions regarding the maintenance of records. Chapter V of the 2010 Act concerns the Register of Clinical Establishments. The District Registering Authority is required, within two years of its establishment, to compile, publish, and maintain a digital register of clinical establishments registered by it. The Authority must enter the particulars of the certificates issued into a register maintained in the form and manner prescribed by the State Government. Similarly, Section 38 requires the State Government to maintain a State Register of Clinical Establishments in a digital format, containing such particulars as may be prescribed by the Central Government.

28. Finally, Chapter VI provides penalties for contravening any provision of the 2010 Act, while Chapter VII contains miscellaneous provisions, including the power to remove difficulties and the power to make rules.

29. In this regard, to effectively implement the provisions of the 2010 Act, the State of Jharkhand has enacted the Jharkhand State Clinical Establishments (Registration and Regulation) Rules, 2013.

30. This court had directed the Respondents to file a detailed affidavit on the status of compliance. We note that an affidavit was filed on behalf of the State Government on 10th October 2025.

                  However, upon a perusal of the same, this Court regrets to observe that the affidavit is significantly lacking in requisite detail.

31. For instance, this Court had instructed the respondents to submit a status report listing unregistered clinical establishments in the State of Jharkhand and detailing any action taken against those that have not obtained registration under the provisions of the 2010 Act, read with the 2013 Rules. The Director-in-Chief of Health Services was also asked to provide a list of all clinical establishments owned, controlled, or managed by the Government or its Departments that are not registered under the 2010 Act or the 2013 Rules. Furthermore, directions were issued to clearly specify the type of medical facilities and services being provided by clinical establishments such as District Hospitals, Sub-Centres, etc., and to identify any gaps or deficiencies therein.

32. The State Government’s affidavit, dated 10th of October 2025, does not sufficiently bring to the fore the requisite details or throw adequate light on the actual status of implementation of the 2010 Act or the 2013 Rules. From the above, it is apparent that, while the statutory regime is in place, its implementation appears casual and ineffective.

33. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Indian Council for Enviro- Legal Action v. Union of India and Others reported in (1996) 5 SCC 281, was constrained to observe that enactment of a law, but tolerating its infringement, is worse than not enacting a law at all. The Hon’ble Court emphasized that allowing persistent violations renders legal provisions nugatory and fosters a culture of lawlessness and observed that when legislation is enacted to prohibit specific activities, its effective enforcement is of paramount importance. The Hon’ble Court also observed that if a law is not voluntarily obeyed, the State must enforce it; otherwise, passive or active condonation of infringements, often for personal gain, undermines the very fabric of a civilized society. While these observations were originally made in the context of environmental protection, they apply with equal force to the enforcement of the 2010 Act and the 2013 Rules. A law is enacted because the legislature deems it necessary for the public good, and its continued infringement cannot be tolerated if the rule of law is to be upheld.

34. Moreover, in the case of Consumer Education & Research Centre v. Union of India and Others, reported in AIR 1995 SC 922, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that right to health is a fundamental right under Article 21 read with Articles 39(e), 41, 43 and 48-A of the Indian Constitution. Since the 2010 Act is a step towards securing this crucial right to the people, no stone must be left unturned to effectively implement this Act and the Rules made thereunder.

35. It appears from the Government Notification dated 08.02.2012 that the State Council and the District Registering Authority have been constituted by the State of Jharkhand. However, from the affidavits filed on record, it is not clear whether the said Council and the District Registering Authority are functional and discharging the functions they are duty-bound to perform under the 2010 Act and the 2013 Rules.

36. The petitioner has also prayed for the issuance of a writ commanding the respondents to ensure that all clinical establishments in the State of Jharkhand provide immediate copies of all relevant documents to patients or their attendants at the time of discharge, to avoid any foul play. While this relief is widely worded, reference may be made to the Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics) Regulations, 2002, published in Part III, Section 4 of the Gazette of India dated 6th April 2002.

37. Under these Regulations, medical practitioners and establishments are under a professional and ethical obligation to maintain and provide medical records upon request. Consequently, the grievance raised by the petitioner regarding the transparency of medical documentation is already rooted in a specialized statutory framework that demands strict adherence.

38. Regulation 1.3 of the 2002 Regulations deals with maintenance of medical records by every physician, and the same reads as follows: -

                  “1.3 Maintenance of medical records

                  1.3.1 Every physician shall maintain the medical records pertaining to his / her indoor patients for a period of 3 years from the date of commencement of the treatment in a standard proforma laid down by the Medical Council of India as Appendix 3.

                  1.3.2. If any request is made for medical records either by the patients / authorised attendant or legal authorities involved, the same may be duly acknowledged and documents shall be issued within the period of 72 hours.

                  1.3.3 A Registered medical practitioner shall maintain a Register of Medical Certificates giving full details of certificates issued. When issuing a medical certificate he / she shall always enter the identification marks of the patient and keep a copy of the certificate. He / She shall not omit to record the signature and/or thumb mark, address and at least one identification mark of the patient on the medical certificates or report. The medical certificate shall be prepared as in Appendix 2.

                  1.3.4 Efforts shall be made to computerize medical records for quick retrieval.”

39. Regulation 7.2 of the 2002 Regulations provides that a physician must maintain medical records of indoor patients for a period of three years, as prescribed under Regulation 1.3. If a physician refuses to provide these records within 72 hours of a request made by a patient or their authorized representative under Regulation 1.3.2, such refusal shall amount to professional misconduct.

40. Thus, on due consideration of the material on record and the relevant legal provisions, we are satisfied that the legal regime is in place, but there is laxity in enforcement. The authorities tasked with implementing the provisions of the 2010 Act and the 2013 rules cannot avoid enforcement or practice only symbolic, paper-based implementation. Therefore, some directions to effectively implement the provisions of the 2010 Act and the 2013 rules are called for.

41. Accordingly, we dispose of this petition by issuing the following directions: -

                  a) The State Council, in accordance with the provisions of Section 8(5) of the 2010 Act, must take immediate steps to compile and update the State Register of Clinical Establishments, send monthly returns to update the National Register, represent the State in the National Council, hear appeals against the orders of the Authority, and publish an annual report on the implementation of standards within the State of Jharkhand.

                  b) The State Council for Clinical Establishments, consistent with the provisions of Section 9 of the 2010 Act, is directed to compile the State Register of Clinical Establishments and, further, to send monthly digital returns to update the National Register.

                  c) The competent authorities under the 2010 Act and 2013 Rules must ensure that no individual operates a clinical establishment unless it has been properly registered in accordance with the provisions of the 2010 Act, read with the 2013 Rules. This directive aligns with the provisions in Section 11 of the 2010 Act. However, the competent authorities must adhere to the principles of natural justice and fair play before taking any precipitous or adverse action in this regard.

                  d) The competent authorities under the 2010 Act and the 2013 Rules must also ensure that the conditions for registration prescribed under Section 12 of the 2010 Act, read with the 2013 Rules, are duly fulfilled before any registration is granted or continued. For this, the competent authorities under the 2010 Act, read with the 2013 Rules, must undertake periodic and thorough inspection of the clinical establishments.

                  e) The State Government should consider constituting a flying squad comprising experts for periodic and thorough inspection of clinical establishments, to ensure compliance with the provisions of the 2010 Act, read with the 2013 Rules.

                  f) The authorities under the 2010 Act read with 2013 Rules must apprise all the clinical establishments of the Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics) Regulations, 2002, in the context of maintenance of medical records of their indoor patients and furnish of the same to the patients/authorised attendants or legal authorities, within a period 72 hours on request being made in that behalf.

                  g) A compliance report in the above regard must be filed by the Director of Health Service with this Court within four months from today, furnishing a status of compliance. Such a compliance report must inter alia address the issues flagged in paragraph 31 of this judgment and order.

42. All concerned shall act based on an authenticated copy of this order. Interim applications, if any, shall stand disposed of. No costs.