Constitutional Law – Kerala Clinical Establishments (Registration and Regulation) Act, 2018 – Validity – Legislative Competence – Public Health – Dentistry – Fee Display – Cancellation of Registration.
2025 KER 44533 : 2025 (6) KLR 231 :
High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam
W.P.(C) Nos. 1365/2019, 2870/2024, 2637/2019, 27168/2023, 29353/2019, 41738/2023
Coram: Harisankar V. Menon, J.
Date of Judgment: June 23, 2025
Held:
-
The Kerala Clinical Establishments (Registration and Regulation) Act, 2018, and its Rules are constitutionally valid. The State of Kerala has legislative competence under Entry 6, List II, Seventh Schedule, to enact the law, independent of the Central Clinical Establishments Act, 2010, as the latter requires adoption by non-sponsoring States under Article 252, which Kerala did not undertake.
-
The inclusion of “dentistry” under Section 2(j) of the Act is valid, as dentistry is a specialized branch of modern medicine, falling within the scope of “public health and sanitation.”
-
Provisions requiring display of “fee rate” and “package rate” under Section 39 are enforceable, supported by prior directions of the Supreme Court and the Kerala High Court, despite undefined terms, as stakeholder consultations are ongoing.
-
Sections 14(3) and 25, governing suspension/cancellation of registration, do not confer unbridled powers, as they mandate due process, including show-cause notices, hearings, and appeals, with immediate closure only in cases of imminent danger to public health, subject to recorded reasons.
-
The inclusion of patient welfare organization representatives in the State Council and Executive Committee under Sections 3 and 8 is not arbitrary, promoting inclusiveness alongside service provider representation.
-
Allegations of arbitrariness or practical difficulties in implementation (e.g., emergency treatment under Section 47, non-issuance of notifications under Section 4(1)(g)) do not warrant striking down the Act, as no specific violation of fundamental rights or constitutional provisions was established. Petitioners were granted liberty to raise practical difficulties with the Government for remedial measures.
-
The Act aligns with Article 47, mandating the State to improve public health, and the right to health as integral to Article 21, with no evidence of misuse by authorities to justify striking it down.
Cases Referred:
-
State of A.P. v. McDowell & Co., (1996) 3 SCC 709
-
Rajbala v. State of Haryana, (2016) 2 SCC 445
-
State of Punjab v. Mohinder Singh Chawla, (1997) 2 SCC 83
-
State of Punjab v. Shiv Ram, (2005) 7 SCC 1
-
Union of India v. Valluri Basavaiah Chowdhary, (1979) 3 SCC 324
-
Sabu P. Joseph v. State of Kerala, 2021 (4) KHC 225
Statutes Referred:
-
Constitution of India, Articles 14, 21, 47, 246, 252
-
Kerala Clinical Establishments (Registration and Regulation) Act, 2018, Sections 2(c), 2(j), 3, 4, 8, 14, 16, 19, 25, 27, 37, 38, 39, 42, 47
-
Clinical Establishments (Registration and Regulation) Act, 2010 (Central Act)
-
Dentists Act, 1948
Petitioners by Advs. Kurian George Kannanthanam (Sr.), George Poonthottam (Sr.), K.I.Mayankutty Mather (Sr.), N. Raghuraj (Sr.), K. Anand, Tony George Kannanthanam, Nisha George, Kavya Varma M.M., K.M. Sathyanatha Menon, Kavery S Thampi, Sidharth R. Wariyar, R. Jaikrishna, R. Surendran, S. Mayukha.
Respondents by Advs. C. Unnikrishnan (Kollam), Ajit Joy, E.G. Gorden, Senior Government Pleader, N. Manoj Kumar, State Attorney, A. Abdul Rahman, Aneesh James, S. Kannan, Senior G.P., Sayujya Radhakrishnan.
Result: Writ petitions dismissed with liberty to petitioners to raise practical difficulties before the Government.
LAWYERS DIRECTORY
K/265/1974 |
K/220/1987 |
K/218/1989 |
K/292/1992 |
K/788/2007 |
K/565/1995 |
K/627/1992 |
K/1343/1995 |
K/1109/2011 |
K/1347/2020 |
K/1256/2004 |
K/1402/2020 |
K/214G/2008 |
K/537/2018 |
K/864/1994 |
K/214D/2008 |
