Home > Recent Judgements >SUPREME COURT ISSUES CONTEMPT NOTICE TO 51 DELHI HOSPITALS FOR NOT PROVIDING FREE TREATMENT TO WEAKER SECTIONS
March 5- 2026
SUPREME COURT ISSUES CONTEMPT NOTICE TO 51 DELHI HOSPITALS FOR NOT PROVIDING FREE TREATMENT TO WEAKER SECTIONS
UNION OF INDIA V. MOOLCHAND KHAIRATI RAM TRUST & ORS.
Introduction
In a significant step aimed at ensuring access to healthcare for economically weaker sections (EWS), the Supreme Court of India recently issued contempt notices to 51 private hospitals in Delhi for failing to comply with the mandatory requirement of providing free treatment to indigent patients.
The direction was issued in the ongoing matter Union of India v. MoolchandKhairati Ram Trust, where the Court is monitoring compliance with earlier orders mandating that hospitals which received land at concessional rates from the government must provide free treatment to a certain percentage of patients belonging to weaker sections of society.
The Court observed that despite clear directions issued earlier, several hospitals had not complied with the obligation to provide free OPD and IPD treatment, and authorities responsible for enforcing compliance had also acted in a casual manner.
Background of the Case
The case concerns private hospitals in Delhi that were allotted land by the government at concessional or subsidized rates. These allotments were made on the condition that hospitals would operate partly for charitable purposes and provide free treatment to economically weaker sections.
In order to regulate such obligations, the Government of India issued an order on 2 February 2012, laying down a policy requiring these hospitals to provide:
- 25% free treatment in OPD (Outpatient Department)
- 10% free treatment in IPD (Inpatient Department)
This policy was aimed at ensuring that private hospitals benefiting from public resources continue to serve poor and underprivileged patients.
In 2018, the Supreme Court upheld this policy and directed hospitals to strictly comply with the requirement.
Compliance Issues Before the Court
Recently, the Government of the National Capital Territory of Delhi (GNCTD) submitted a compliance affidavit before the Supreme Court highlighting that several hospitals were not fulfilling their obligations under the policy.
The affidavit revealed that:
- Many hospitals failed to maintain the required percentage of free OPD and IPD patients.
- Despite identifying violations, authorities had not taken adequate action.
- Communications issued by the government to agencies such as Delhi Development Authority (DDA), Land & Development Office (L&DO), and Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) were either ignored or not acted upon.
Taking note of these developments, the Court expressed concern that the entire matter had been handled “very casually” by the authorities.
Supreme Court’s Observations
A bench comprising Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice N.V. Anjaria directed that contempt notices be issued to 51 hospitals for failing to comply with the Court’s earlier orders.
The hospitals were directed to show cause why contempt proceedings should not be initiated against them for non-compliance.
The Court also indicated that if violations were established, benefits granted to the hospitals, including concessional land allotments, could be withdrawn.
Appointment of Nodal Officer
To ensure proper implementation of its directions, the Supreme Court appointed the Secretary, Department of Health, GNCTD as the Nodal Officer for the matter.
The Nodal Officer has been directed to:
- Examine compliance by all hospitals
- Coordinate with DDA, L&DO, and MCD
- Take action against defaulting hospitals
- Inform the Court about lapses by authorities
The Court further directed all concerned authorities to respond promptly to the Nodal Officer and cooperate in ensuring enforcement of the Court’s directions.
List of Hospitals Issued Contempt Notices
The Supreme Court issued notices to the following 51 hospitals in Delhi:
- Arya VaidyashalaKottakkal
- Kailash Deepak Hospital
- FLT. LT. Rajan Fortis Hospital
- Delhi ENT Hospital
- MGS Super Specialty Hospital
- Mai Kamali Wali Hospital
- Max Super Specialty Hospital (Press Enclave)
- Mool Chand Khairatiram Hospital
- Primus Super Specialty Hospital
- Sita Ram Bharti Hospital
- Venkateshwar Hospital
- Vinayak Hospital
- VIMHANS Hospital
- Max Smart Hospital
- Action Cancer Hospital
- Ayushman Hospital and Health Services
- Batra Hospital & Medical Research Centre
- Bensups Hospital
- Bimla Devi Hospital
- BLK Kapoor Memorial Hospital (BLK Max)
- Centre for Sight
- Dharamshila Narayana Hospital
- Fortis Escorts Hospital
- Guru Harkishan Hospital
- Hakeem Abdul Hameed Centenary Hospital (HAHC)
- Human Care Charitable Hospital
- Indian Spinal Injuries Centre
- Jaipur Golden Hospital
- Jeevan Anmol Hospital
- Madhukar Rainbow Children’s Hospital
- Maharaja Agrasen Hospital, Punjabi Bagh
- Yatharth Hospital
- Maharaja Agrasen Hospital (Dwarka)
- Maharishi Ayurveda Hospital
- Mata Chanan Devi Hospital
- Max Super Specialty Hospital (Patparganj)
- Max Super Specialty Hospital (Shalimar Bagh)
- National Heart Institute
- Pushpawati Singhania Hospital
- R.L.K.C. Hospital
- Red Cross General Maternity and Child Care Hospital
- Rajiv Gandhi Cancer Institute & Research Centre, Rohini
- Rajiv Gandhi Cancer Institute & Research Centre, Niti Bagh
- Saroj Hospital / Shanti Mukand Hospital
- Shree Aggarsain International Hospital
- Sir Ganga Ram Hospital
- St. Stephen’s Hospital
- Swami Parmanand Hospital
- Prakritik Hospital
- Santom Hospital
- Sri Balaji Action Medical Institute
Legal Principles Involved
- Enforcement of Conditions Attached to Public Land
Hospitals receiving land at subsidized rates from the government must fulfill the social obligations attached to such allotments.
- Right to Healthcare for Economically Weaker Sections
The policy ensures that private hospitals benefiting from public resources contribute to the constitutional goal of equitable healthcare access.
- Contempt of Court
Failure to follow binding directions of the Supreme Court may amount to civil contempt under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, as it constitutes wilful disobedience of judicial orders.
Significance of the Order
The Supreme Court’s action has wider implications for healthcare governance in India:
Ensuring Social Accountability
Private hospitals benefiting from public land cannot operate purely as commercial institutions without fulfilling their charitable obligations.
Strengthening Enforcement Mechanisms
The appointment of a nodal officer aims to ensure better monitoring and enforcement of compliance.
Protecting Healthcare Rights
The order strengthens the availability of free treatment for poor patients, especially in urban areas where private healthcare dominates.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s decision to issue contempt notices to 51 hospitals in Delhi represents a strong step toward ensuring accountability in private healthcare institutions that benefit from public concessions.
By insisting on strict compliance with the requirement of providing 25% free OPD and 10% free IPD treatment, the Court has reinforced the principle that public benefits must translate into public welfare.
The final outcome of the proceedings will play a crucial role in determining how effectively such social obligations are enforced in India’s healthcare system.