Supreme Court Directs Fire Safety Measures in COVID Hospitals: Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No. 7 of 2020 (18 December 2020)

Date of the Judgment: 18 December 2020
Citation: Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No. 7 of 2020
Judges: Ashok Bhushan J., R. Subhash Reddy J., and M.R. Shah J.

Following tragic fire incidents in COVID-19 hospitals, resulting in the loss of lives, the Supreme Court of India took suo motu cognizance to address the urgent need for fire safety measures in these facilities. This order emphasizes the fundamental right to health under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, and directs all States and Union Territories to implement strict safety protocols and ensure affordable treatment for all citizens.

Case Background

The Supreme Court initiated this suo motu writ petition following a fire incident at a COVID hospital in Rajkot, Gujarat, on 26 November 2020, which resulted in the death of several patients. The court also noted previous fire incidents in other COVID hospitals. This prompted the court to examine the fire safety measures in COVID hospitals across the country. The Court directed the Union of India and the State of Gujarat to submit reports detailing the steps taken to prevent such incidents.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Supreme Court, after taking suo motu cognizance, directed the Union of India and the State of Gujarat to submit reports on the measures taken to prevent fire incidents in COVID hospitals. The Union of India filed affidavits on 30 November 2020 and 11 December 2020, detailing the advisory issued to all States and the status reports received from them. The State of Gujarat also filed an affidavit outlining the steps taken, including the appointment of a nodal officer for fire safety in dedicated COVID hospitals.

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court highlighted that the right to health is a fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. This right includes access to affordable treatment. The court emphasized the duty of the State to provide affordable healthcare and ensure adequate facilities in state-run hospitals. The court also noted that private hospitals could be regulated under the Disaster Management Act to cap fees.

The Court also took note of the guidelines issued by the Election Commission of India for the conduct of General Elections/Bye-Elections during Covid-19 in August, 2020.

Arguments

The learned Solicitor General for India, Shri Tushar Mehta, submitted that immediate steps would be taken to prevent the recurrence of fire incidents in COVID hospitals, and a report would be submitted. The Union of India submitted that an advisory had been issued to all States to prevent fire incidents and sought status reports on the implementation of guidelines, ‘No Objection Certificates’ (NOCs), and inspections of hospitals and nursing homes.

The State of Gujarat submitted that a nodal officer for fire safety had been appointed in dedicated COVID hospitals and detailed the inspections and audits undertaken.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section. However, the core issues addressed by the court can be summarized as follows:

• Ensuring fire safety in COVID hospitals across all States and Union Territories.
• Implementing measures to prevent the recurrence of fire incidents in hospitals.
• Ensuring the implementation of guidelines and SOPs related to COVID-19.
• Regulating the cost of treatment in private hospitals to make healthcare affordable.
• Ensuring adherence to COVID-19 guidelines by the public and political parties.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court relied on the following:

• Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which guarantees the right to health as a fundamental right.
• The Disaster Management Act, under which the government can regulate private hospitals.
• Guidelines issued by the Election Commission of India for conduct of elections during COVID-19.

Judgment

The Supreme Court, in its judgment, emphasized the need for strict adherence to fire safety norms in COVID hospitals. The Court directed all States and Union Territories to appoint nodal officers for fire safety in each COVID hospital, and to constitute district-level committees to conduct monthly fire audits. Hospitals lacking the necessary ‘No Objection Certificate’ (NOC) were directed to apply immediately, with appropriate action to be taken against non-compliant facilities.

The Court also addressed the issue of affordable healthcare, stating that the right to health under Article 21 of the Constitution includes affordable treatment. It emphasized the duty of the State to provide affordable healthcare and suggested that private hospital fees could be capped under the Disaster Management Act.

The Court also took note of the guidelines issued by the Election Commission of India for the conduct of General Elections/Bye-Elections during Covid-19 in August, 2020.

The Court also directed that strict action should be taken against those who are violating the guidelines and SOPs, whoever he may be and whatever position the violator is occupying.

The Court also directed that the States should ensure that the SOPs and the guidelines issued from time to time are strictly adhered to and followed by the people.

The Court directed that there shall be more and more testing and to declare the correct facts and figures.

The Court directed that whenever directions are issued under the Disaster Management Act directing the corporate hospitals/private hospitals to keep 50% or any other percentage free municipal beds, it must be strictly complied with and there shall be constant vigilance and supervision.

The Court directed that there shall be free helpline numbers to redress the grievances of common man, when there is non-compliance of the directions by the private hospitals/corporate hospitals.

The Court directed that curfew on weekends/night be considered by States where it is not in place.

The Court directed that in a micro containment zone or in an area where number of cases are on higher side, to cut the chain, they should be sealed and there should be complete lockdown so far as such areas are concerned.

The Court directed that any decision to impose curfew and/or lockdown must be announced long in advance so that the people may know and make provisions for their livelihood, like ration etc.

The Court also took note of the fatigue of front row health care officers, such as, Doctors, Nurses as well as workers and suggested that some mechanism may be required to give them intermittent rest.

The Court also took note of the gatherings organized by Political parties and directed that the guidelines issued by the Election Commission of India for conduct of elections during COVID-19 should be implemented by the different States with suitable modifications with reference to Elections of other organizations to ensure safety of people in general from Covid-19.

The Court observed, “Right to health is a fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Right to health includes affordable treatment. Therefore, it is the duty upon the State to make provisions for affordable treatment and more and more provisions in the hospitals to be run by the State and/or local administration are made.”

The Court further observed, “Despite the Guidelines and SOPs issued, for lack of implementation the Pandemic has spread like wild fire. A strict and stern action should be taken against those who are violating the Guidelines and SOPs, whoever he may be and whatever position the violator is occupying.”

The Court also stated, “People should understand their duty and follow rules very strictly. It is the duty of every citizen to perform their fundamental duties as guaranteed under the Constitution of India.”

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily driven by the need to protect public health and safety during the COVID-19 pandemic. The Court emphasized the fundamental right to health under Article 21 of the Constitution, which includes affordable treatment. The Court was also concerned about the lack of implementation of existing guidelines and SOPs, leading to the spread of the pandemic and tragic incidents like the hospital fires. The Court’s concern for public safety was evident in its directions for strict action against violators and the need for public adherence to rules. The Court also sought to ensure that the healthcare system was accessible and affordable to all citizens.

Logical Reasoning

Key Takeaways

• All States and Union Territories must appoint a nodal officer for fire safety in each COVID hospital.
• Monthly fire audits must be conducted in all COVID hospitals by a district-level committee.
• COVID hospitals must obtain or renew their ‘No Objection Certificate’ (NOC) from the fire department.
• The State has a duty to provide affordable healthcare, and private hospital fees may be capped under the Disaster Management Act.
• Strict action should be taken against those who are violating the guidelines and SOPs.
• The public must adhere to COVID-19 guidelines and SOPs.
• States and Union Territories must ensure compliance with the Election Commission’s guidelines for political gatherings.

Directions

The Supreme Court issued the following directions:

1. All States/Union Territories should appoint one nodal officer for each COVID hospital responsible for ensuring fire safety compliance.
2. Each district should constitute a committee to conduct monthly fire audits of COVID hospitals.
3. COVID hospitals without NOCs should apply immediately, and those without renewals should take steps for renewal.
4. States/UTs to ensure compliance with the Election Commission’s guidelines for political gatherings.

Development of Law

This judgment reinforces the fundamental right to health under Article 21 of the Constitution, emphasizing the State’s duty to ensure affordable treatment. It also highlights the importance of strict adherence to safety protocols and guidelines during a pandemic. The judgment also directs that the guidelines issued by the Election Commission of India for conduct of elections during COVID-19 should be implemented by the different States with suitable modifications with reference to Elections of other organizations to ensure safety of people in general from Covid-19.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s order in Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No. 7 of 2020 is a crucial step towards ensuring fire safety in COVID hospitals and affordable healthcare for all citizens. By directing States and Union Territories to implement strict safety measures and regulate private hospital fees, the court has reaffirmed the fundamental right to health as enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution. This judgment also underscores the importance of public adherence to COVID-19 guidelines and SOPs and the need for strict action against violators.