Cannot act on half-baked petitions: Delhi High Court
Cannot act on half-baked petitions: Delhi High Court
The court dismissed the PIL filed by NGO, Centre for Human Rights, which had sought a direction to the Centre to define its policy on medical treatment.

New Delhi: Dismissing a PIL seeking a direction to the Centre to define its policy on medical treatment given to poor children at a government hospital, the Delhi High Court on Tuesday said that it cannot act on "half-baked" petitions.

"Though undoubtedly the number of 10,081(who have died) does indeed appear to be high and our heart bleeds at such a large number of young lives being extinguished before they had a chance to bloom, but we cannot at the same time set in motion the process of the Court on such half or less-baked petitions," a bench of Chief Justice G Rohini and Justice RS Endlaw said.

The court dismissed the PIL filed by NGO, Centre for Human Rights, which had sought a direction to the Centre to define its policy on medical treatment given to poor children at a hospital after an RTI reply showed over 10,000 children have died between the years 2008 to 2012 due to lack of facility.

The court had on May 21 reserved its verdict on the plea which had also sought a direction to the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare to file a status report regarding conditions prevailing at Kalawati Saran Children's Hospital.

The information was obtained by Delhi resident Rajhans Bansal who filed an RTI application seeking details of the numbers of children who died in government hospitals in the last five years.

As per information furnished by the hospital, a total of 10,081 children have died in Kalawati Saran hospital between the years 2008 to 2012. However, no information was provided by the hospital on reasons behind these deaths.

"We are this time around only cautioning the petitioner to henceforth not to file petitions in public interest without backing the same with any hard work..." the bench said. "The present petition has been filed without studying the legal position and which lends us to believe that the same is more in the nature of personal interest as a public interest activist rather than any desire to toil for the benefit of the public," the court held.

What's your reaction?

Comments

https://rawisda.com/assets/images/user-avatar-s.jpg

0 comment

Write the first comment for this!