Chandigarh: The Punjab and Haryana high court has directed the governments of Punjab, Haryana, and the Union Territory of Chandigarh to file affidavits detailing their respective medical policies, specifically regarding the minimum infrastructural requirements at district hospitals. The court has asked for clarity on the availability of CT scanners and MRI machines in these hospitals.The affidavits must also specify whether the CT and MRI facilities in government hospitals are state-owned or outsourced. This directive was issued by a division bench comprising Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sanjiv Berry, as part of an ongoing public interest litigation (PIL) filed by Bhisham Kinger.The PIL, filed last year, highlighted the dire condition of the civil hospital in Malerkotla, Punjab. Despite being a 130-bed facility, the hospital had only four doctors, with most specialist and paramedical posts lying vacant. Taking cognisance of the issue, the HC had sought reports from the state authorities and passed several interim orders.During the hearing on July 17, the Punjab government informed the court that 20 medical officers had been posted at the Malerkotla hospital to fill existing vacancies – 11 of them were fresh recruits, while the remaining nine were transferred from other locations.Following this, the HC directed the principal secretary (health), Punjab, to file a fresh affidavit clarifying whether the nine transferred medical officers were surplus at their previous postings. If not, the affidavit must explain what steps were taken to fill the vacancies created by their transfer.The bench also questioned why the state of Punjab cannot purchase CT scanners and MRI machines for every district hospital, reiterating that providing free medical aid is a sovereign function of the state.Recognising the broader public importance of the issue, the court expanded the scope of the PIL to include all districts of Haryana and Chandigarh. The bench directed both Haryana and Chandigarh to file replies to the petition and respond to the various interlocutory orders passed by the court so far. The matter has been adjourned for further hearing on Aug 19.
