Read Time: 06 minutes

The Delhi High Court today said that that that it is the obligation of the state to provide sufficient infrastructure and protect the lives of its citizens while hearing a plea seeking emergency ICU bed with ventilator for an old patient.

The observation was made by the division bench comprising Justices Vipin Sanghi and Rekha Palli while hearing a batch of petitions relating to Covid mismanagement in Delhi.

The petition was filed on behalf of a 52-year-old Laxman Singh who was diagnosed with covid 19 and suffering from acute breathlessness. He has been admitted to a hospital in Budhbazar. The petitioner required an ICU bed with ventilator facility but the said hospital does not have the facility.

The petitioner hence approached the Court through Advocate Gehlaut seeking direction to the UOI, GNCTD, NDMA, DDMA to make arrangements in any hospital in Delhi with ICU and ventilator facility. He said that Art 21 guarantees right to life to every person.

The bench noted that though the petitioner was right in his approach that it is the obligation of the state to protect the lives of its citizens, but one could not lose sight of the fact that the Country at present is facing with a once in a century pandemic where even most economically advanced nations infrastructure has failed.

While the bench recorded in its order that the existing infrastructure of the state has been exposed and put to test, Mr. Rahul Mehra appearing for GNCTD pressed the bench not to hold the infrastructure responsible as it would give the citizens a different perspective.

He said that it was the lack of oxygen which was responsible for the present situation.

“Moreover, there were 15000 beds in pipeline,” he said.

The bench however expressed displeasure at Mehra submissions and said,

“Pipeline is a pipeline. If you defend your position, you are not rising above politics. We have always called a spade a spade”.

The bench then reminded Mehra of Advocate Sharma’s brother-in-law whose life could not be saved due to the unavailability of an ICU bed and the Court could not do anything to save his life.

At this juncture Mehra apologized and withdrew his statement.

The bench said,

“We are sworn to protect the Fundamental Rights of the citizens and ideally an ICU bed with a ventilator should be made available to him.”

The bench however clarified that just because the petitioner had the resources to avail the services of a lawyer, he cannot be given a preferential treatment since there are many who cannot afford it.

Adv Gehlaut then clarified that he was appearing pro bono and requested the bench for a directive to the Government.

In this light, the bench directed the government to provide the required facility for all persons in need due to Covid in Delhi. The Court clarified that merely because a petition has been filed the petitioner does not get a preferential treatment.