Supreme Court refuses to lift stay on Delhi Govt plan to reserve 80% ICU beds for COVID-19 patients

The Supreme Court on Tuesday declined to lift the stay on Delhi government plan to reserve 80 percent of ICU beds in private hospitals for COVID-19 patients.A two-judge bench of Justices Ashok Bhushan and BR Gavai directed Aam Aadmi Party government to instead approach Delhi High Court, where the case is pending, to lift the stay. .Arvind Kejriwal govt moves Supreme Court against Delhi HC order staying reservation of 80% ICU beds in private hospitals for COVID-19 patients.The top court also directed the High Court to hear the case day after tomorrow on November 12 after Additional Solicitor General Sanjay Jain appearing for Delhi government stated that the Covid situation in the national capital was worsening with each passing day. ."Let this matter be listed before the concerned bench in Delhi High Court day after tomorrow. Let this order be placed in court to direct the listing of the matter day after tomorrow. It shall be open for parties to submit such pleading before LPA court as may be advised," the top court ordered..The appeal filed through advocate Chirag M Shroff assailed the September 22 order of a single judge of the High Court which had stayed the government decision to reserve beds in private hospitals for Covid patients. This order was passed by Justice Navin Chawla. A Division Bench order of the High Court posting the hearing of the case for November 27, without vacating the stay issued by the single judge was also challenged before the Supreme Court.In its appeal, the Delhi government stated that High Court failed to consider that it only directed 33 private nursing homes and hospitals (out of a total of almost 1170 private nursing homes and hospitals across NCT of Delhi) to reserve 80% of their ICU beds for COVID-19 patients..However, the Supreme Court noted that the adjournment granted by the Division bench was on request of Delhi government itself and that any request to hear it early or to advance the hearing date could have been made before the concerned court.,To this, ASG Sanjay Jain responded that the counsel appearing before the High Court had certain health issues. .Justice BR Gavai further questioned Jain on why no material was placed on record to show that there were no beds available for COVID-19 patients. .Jain said that upcoming season of Diwali and pollution would create a spike in daily Covid case load. ."A lot of people come from outside the state and get treated in private hospitals and use ICU beds. Expert committee suggested Delhi needs 6,000 ICU beds and we have 3,500 beds. If we had the notification going in then we could have had 300 to 500 more beds,"Sanjay Jain submitted..However, the bench was unimpressed stating that it is upto the Delhi High Court to hear and dispose of the case. .The Delhi government in it plea had stated that none of the 33 hospitals in question objected to the government order on reservation of hospital beds.It also stated that the claim made by the Association of Healthcare Providers (petitioners before Delhi High Court) that adverse impact would be caused to non-COVID patients was simply to mask the commercial interests of private hospitals, who had been directed to only charge a capped fee for treatment of COVID-19 patients..Moreover, as result of the stay on the government order, the petition claimed that COVID-19 patients, who had been inducted by the hospitals pursuant to the government order, would be forced to pay "exorbitant, non-Covid rates" for the remainder of their treatment in the ICU where they are already admitted.It was also the case of Kejriwal government that courts cannot interfere with policy decisions of the State, especially when the policy decision is taken in public interest..Senior Advocate Maninder Singh appearing for the respondents argued that Delhi High Court is operational and that he has no qualms about the date on which case is fixed for hearing. .The Supreme Court, therefore, directed the matter to be listed day after tomorrow before the concerned bench at the High Court.