IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. _____ OF 2020
IN THE MATTER OF:
Reepak Kansal, Advocate. …Petitioner
VERSUS
Union of India & Ors. …
Respondents
WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SEEKING ISSUANCE OF A WRIT
OF MANDAMUS IN THE ISSUE OF VIOLATION OF
FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS UNDER ARTICLE 14 AND 21 OF
THE INDIAN CONSTITUTION
TO,
THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE OF INDIA AND HIS COMPANION
JUSTICES OF THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
THE HUMBLE PETITION OF THE PETITIONER ABOVE-
NAMED
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:
1. FACTS OF THE CASE:
1. That the petitioner, Reepak Kansal, an advocate practicing
before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, filed the present writ
petition under Article 32 seeking a writ of mandamus
against the Union of India.
2. That during the COVID-19 pandemic, the petitioner
challenged the differential treatment of patients in private
and government hospitals in terms of COVID-19 testing
and treatment costs.
3. That the petition highlighted that private hospitals were
charging exorbitant fees for COVID-19 treatment, making
it inaccessible to many citizens, thereby violating Articles
14 and 21 of the Constitution.
4. That the Disaster Management Act, 2005, was invoked by
the government to regulate pandemic response, but there
was inadequate control over private hospitals' pricing
policies.
5. That the petition sought the Supreme Court’s intervention
to ensure the government exercised its powers under the
Disaster Management Act to regulate pricing and ensure
free or affordable treatment in private hospitals, especially
for economically weaker sections.
6. That the petition also questioned the role of the
government in ensuring equitable access to healthcare
during the pandemic and the proper implementation of
the National Disaster Management Plan.
2. GROUNDS:
A. Violation of Article 21 (Right to Life and Health):
Because the right to life includes the right to health, and
exorbitant pricing by private hospitals deprives citizens of
their fundamental right to medical treatment.
B. Violation of Article 14 (Right to Equality):
Because unequal treatment between patients based on
financial status creates an arbitrary and discriminatory
classification.
C. State’s Duty Under Directive Principles of State
Policy:
Because as per Article 47, the State has a duty to improve
public health and ensure access to essential services like
healthcare.
D. Powers Under the Disaster Management Act, 2005:
Because under Sections 6, 10, and 62 of the Disaster
Management Act, the central government and disaster
management authorities have the power to regulate
pricing and availability of essential services, including
healthcare.
Because the government’s inaction in controlling private
hospital charges during a national disaster constitutes a
failure in disaster management.
E. Precedents and Judicial Activism:
Because reference to cases such as Paschim Banga Khet
Mazdoor Samity v. State of West Bengal (1996) where the
court held that the state must ensure adequate medical
services.
Because Mohd. Ahmed (Minor) v. Union of India &
Ors. (2014), which emphasized the government's role in
providing essential medical care to underprivileged
citizens.
Because Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018),
where the Supreme Court reiterated the principle that the
right to health is an integral part of Article 21.
3. ISSUES RAISED:
1. Whether the differential pricing for COVID-19 treatment in
private hospitals violates the fundamental rights of
citizens under Articles 14 and 21?
2. Whether the Union of India has a constitutional obligation
to regulate healthcare pricing to ensure access to medical
treatment for all?
3. Whether the government’s failure to intervene in the
pricing of COVID-19 treatment in private hospitals
amounts to a violation of the Right to Life under Article
21?
4. Whether the Disaster Management Act, 2005, mandates
the government to regulate the costs of medical
treatment and testing during a national disaster such as
the COVID-19 pandemic?
5. Whether the Hon’ble Supreme Court should direct the
government to cap treatment prices and ensure affordable
healthcare for all during the pandemic?
4. PRAYER:
In light of the above facts and grounds, the petitioner most
respectfully prays that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to:
1. Issue a writ of mandamus directing the Union of India to
regulate COVID-19 treatment prices in private hospitals
and ensure affordability.
2. Direct the government to exercise its powers under the
Disaster Management Act, 2005, to regulate healthcare
costs and prevent profiteering during national
emergencies.
3. Direct the government to take immediate steps to ensure
free or subsidized treatment for economically weaker
sections.
4. Pass any other order or direction that this Hon’ble Court
may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice.
AND FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS, THE PETITIONER AS IN
DUTY BOUND SHALL EVER PRAY.
DRAWN & FILED BY:
Reepak Kansal
Advocate-on-Record
PLACE: New Delhi
DATE: 30th June, 2020
AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF WRIT PETITION UNDER
ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION.
Reepak Kansal, Advocate. …Petitioner
VERSUS
Union of India & Ors. …
Respondents
I, Reepak kansal, office located at wb-211, UFF, Ganesh Nagar
II, Shakarpur, Delhi, 110092, do hereby solemnly affirm and
declare as under:
1. That I am the petitioner in the present suit and am fully
aware of the facts and circumstances surrounding the case.
2. That the contents of the accompanying application under
Article 32 of the Indian constitution, have been drafted
under my instructions and the contents of paragraphs 1 to 8
of the said application are true and correct to the best of my
knowledge and belief.
3. That this affidavit is made bona fide and in the
interest of justice.
VERIFICATION
I, the above-named deponent, do hereby verify that the
contents of paragraphs 1 to 3 of this affidavit are true and
correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. Nothing
material has been concealed therein.
Verified at Delhi on 30th June, 2025.
Deponent
(REEPAK KANSAL)
