Institute of Legal and Management Studies

The Supreme Court today issued notice on a petition seeking enforcement of Rules 9(i) and 9(ii) of the Clinical Establishments (Central Government) Rules, 2012.

For context, Rule 9 of the 2012 Rules mandates that hospitals and clinical establishments display rates for services provided and charge fees within the range determined by the Centre in consultation with state governments. This Rule has not been enforced since the Government is yet to specify the limits of service charge.

A bench of Justices BR Gavai and AG Masih passed the order, after hearing Senior Advocate CU Singh (for petitioner-Voice Society), and listed the case alongwith a similar pending matter.

The case was initially listed before a bench of CJI Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar. However, it came before Justice Gavai as Justice Kumar recused and the CJI-Designate was in seisin of another petition, filed by NGO 'Veterans Forum for Transparency in Public Life', seeking similar prayers.

In the said case, the Court last year criticized the Central Government's failure to specify the range of rates within which private hospitals and clinical establishments can charge for their treatment services. Although the rule in this regard was framed 12 years ago, the Court noted that it had not been enforced. The Union Government sought to defend itself by claiming that despite repeated attempts to engage with states on the issue, there was a lack of response. However, underlining citizens' fundamental right to healthcare, the Court said that the Centre could not evade its responsibility.

At the time, the Union Health Secretary was directed to convene a meeting with state counterparts within a month to “come with a concrete proposal" for the notification of a standard rate. If the Centre failed to devise a solution, the Court warned that it would consider the petitioner-NGO's suggestion to notify the standardized rates applicable to the Central Government Health Services (CGHS)-empanelled hospitals as an interim measure and issue appropriate directions to that effect.

Later, in September, 2024, notice was issued on a petition filed by the Association of Healthcare Providers (India) challenging the constitutionality of Rule 9(ii) of the 2012 Rules as ultra vires the Clinical Establishment Act, 2010. As per AHPI, the increasing technological advancements in medical procedures make it difficult to stick to fixed rates considering the increased investments into the procedures and implants. The price ceilings may therefore become an obstacle in adopting medical advancements for the clinical establishments.

The specific reliefs sought through the present petition are as follows:

- Direction for enforcement of Rules 9(i) and 9(ii) of the Clinical Establishments (Central Government) Rules, 2012 in the States and Union Territories where the Clinical Establishments (Registration and Regulation) Act, 2010 is applicable;

- Direction for all clinical establishments registered under the Clinical Establishments (Registration and Regulation) Act, 2010 to display the rates charged for each type of service provided and facilities available at a conspicuous place in the local as well as in English language with immediate effect;

- Direction for notification of the Charter of Patients' Rights, as circulated by the Union on 29.11.2022.

Case Title: VOICE SOCIETY Versus UNION OF INDIA AND ANR., W.P.(C) No. 409/2025