LegalFirms.in
LegalFirms.in Judgments · legalfirms.in/judgments/siddharth-dalmia-anr-vs-union-of-india-ors-20250304/ · Printed 07 Nov 2026
Constitutional · Reportable judgment

Siddharth Dalmia & Anr. vs Union of India & Ors.

Court
Supreme Court of India
Date
4 March 2025
Case No.
Writ Petition (C) No. 337 of 2018
Result
Disposed
Bench
Surya Kant, N Kotiswar Singh
Citation
[2025] 4 S.C.R. 197 : 2025 INSC 351
Acts & Sections
Constitution
Supreme Court Reports [2025] 4 S.C.R. 197 : 2025 INSC 351
Issue for consideration
In the instant Writ petition, purportedly filed in Public Interest, the Petitioner sought a direction to the private hospitals not to compel the patients to buy the medicines, etc. from the pharmacies recommended by them. The issues were (i) whether the affairs of the private hospitals, nursing homes, medical institutes, etc. with reference to the fixation of prices of drugs, equipment, or other accessories sold from the pharmacies run by them and/or with whom they have some commercial agreement, can be regulated through administrative or legislative measures? (ii) If so, what can be the extent of such measures? and (iii) What is the mechanism to enforce such measures and to whom such task can be entrusted.
Headnote

Constitution of India – Part IV; Seventh Schedule, List II – Problem of unreasonable charges and exploitation of patients in private hospitals – Not advisable for the Court to issue mandatory directions – Necessity to sensitize the State Governments – Direction to all the State Governments to take appropriate policy decisions:

Held: The States have committed themselves to provide medical facilities to the people in furtherance of the duty and vision enshrined in Part IV of the Constitution – However, in proportion to the population of this country, the States have not been able to develop the requisite medical infrastructure to cater to the needs of all kinds of patients – The States have, therefore, facilitated and promoted private entities to come forward in the medical field – Not only the people, even the States look towards these private entities to provide basic and specialized medical facilities to the public at large – The subject of public health and sanitation, hospitals, and dispensaries falls under List-II- the State List – It may not be advisable for this Court to issue mandatory directions which may hamper the growth of hospitals in the private sector; but parallelly, it is necessary to sensitize the State Governments re: the problem of unreasonable charges and exploitation of patients in private hospitals – Consequently, this Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to all the State Governments to consider this issue and take appropriate policy decisions as they may deem fit. [Paras 13, 16 and 17]

Constitution of India – Art. 21 – Right to life – Provision of medical facilities to one and all is an essential component of the right. [Para 13]

Keywords: Public Interest · Private hospitals · Unreasonable charges and exploitation of patients in private hospitals · Mandatory directions · Sensitize the State Government · Policy decisions · Public health and sanitation, hospitals, and dispensaries · State List · Right to life · Medical facilities

As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Bibhuti Bhushan Bose In Re : Section 6A of the Citizenship Act 1955, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2880; Suman Kumar v. Union of India, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1750; Transport & Dock Workers Union v. Mumbai Port Trust, (2011) 2 SCC 575; Govt. of A.. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.

Full Judgment Text

Judgment Surya Kant, J. 1. The instant Writ Petition, under Article 32 of the Constitution, has been filed purportedly in public interest. The petitioners seek to restrain private hospitals from compelling the patients to purchase medicines/devices/implants/consumables from the hospital pharmacies only, where they allegedly charge exorbitant rates, as compared to the notified market prices of those items. 2. The aforesaid relief has been sought in the backdrop of an unfortunate personal experience. The mother of petitioner No.1, who was the wife of petitioner No. 2, was diagnosed with breas
Full text available to subscribers
Subscribe to access complete judgment text, daily digests, and AI-powered legal research tools. For informational and research purposes only.
View Subscription Plans →
Annual plans from ₹1,599 + GST.

This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.

All SC judgments →