Parminder Singh vs. Union Of INDIA And Ors

Facts

The petitioner, Parminder Singh, filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking a direction to the Union of India, Govt. of NCT of Delhi, and the Indian Medical Association to mandatorily make video laryngoscopes available in healthcare facilities, particularly in crash cart trolleys, to manage difficult intubation. The petitioner also prayed for directions to medical colleges and institutions to use video laryngoscopes for teaching and training, and for medical practitioners to be trained in their usage. The petitioner argued that advancements in technology necessitate the adoption of video laryngoscopes, citing the growth of the medical devices sector in India. The respondents, through their counsel, contended that the availability of medical equipment is a policy decision of the State and that courts should not interfere with such decisions unless they are mala fide, unreasonable, arbitrary, or unfair. The Court noted that the petitioner had not provided data demonstrating fatalities due to the absence of video laryngoscopes and suggested the petition might be sponsored by manufacturers.

Held

The Court held that the decision to procure and make available specific medical equipment like video laryngoscopes is a policy decision of the government. It is not within the domain of the judiciary to interfere with such policy decisions, especially in the health sector, unless the policy is found to be mala fide, unreasonable, arbitrary, or unfair. The Court noted that the petitioner had not provided any data to demonstrate that the absence of video laryngoscopes leads to fatalities. The Court also expressed concern that the PIL might be an abuse of the judicial process, potentially sponsored by manufacturers to promote their products. Citing Supreme Court precedents, the Court reiterated that it cannot act as an appellate authority examining the wisdom or appropriateness of a policy, nor can it substitute its views for those of the executive. Therefore, the Court dismissed the petition.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Court should issue a writ of mandamus directing the Union of India, Govt. of NCT of Delhi, and the Indian Medical Association to mandatorily make video laryngoscopes available in healthcare facilities, particularly in crash cart trolleys, and to ensure their use for teaching and training purposes, thereby mandating a policy decision regarding medical equipment procurement and usage. Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner contended that advancements in medical technology, specifically the development of video laryngoscopes, warrant their mandatory inclusion in the healthcare system to improve patient outcomes during intubation. They highlighted the growth of the medical devices sector and suggested that the government has not taken substantial steps to implement this technology and train medical personnel. Respondent's Arguments: The respondents argued that decisions regarding the procurement and availability of medical equipment constitute policy decisions of the State. They relied on Supreme Court judgments (Jacob Puliyel v. Union of India, Academy of Nutrition Improvement v. Union of India, and Small Scale Industrial Manufacturers Association (Regd.) v. Union of India) which establish that courts should exercise restraint and not interfere with policy decisions unless they are demonstrably mala fide, unreasonable, arbitrary, or unfair. They also pointed out the lack of data from the petitioner to substantiate claims of fatalities due to the absence of video laryngoscopes.