2018 (7) TMI 2318 - SC - Income Tax

Meaning of charity - direction to give free of cost to patients of economically weaker sections - validity of Circular issued by the Government of NCT of Delhi (GNCTD) as intimated the hospitals to implement the judgment of Delhi High Court with regard to free treatment to the weaker sections of the society in terms of the judgment in the case of Social Jurists v. Government of NCT of Delhi Ors 2013 (3) TMI 832 - DELHI HIGH COURT - whether Moolchand Kharaiti Ram Trust and St. Stephens Hospital have obtained the land for charitable purposes at a concessional rate, it was open to the Government to impose a condition of 10% in IPD and 25% in OPD services to be provided free of cost to patients of economically weaker sections? HELD THAT - The objects of the creation of Trust were imparting education in and preaching Sanskrit according to Sanatan Dharam methods; and, secondly, for devising means for imparting education in and improving the Ayurvedic system of medicine and preaching the same. In order to achieve the latter object, it was not prohibited to take help from the English or Yunani or any other system of medicine and according to need, one or more than one Ayurvedic Hospital may be opened. It was contended that it was not in the deed of the Trust to impart free medical aid. The ground raised and what is contained in the Will is against the very purpose for which the Moolchand Kharaiti Ram Hospital is being run. When its object was of improving the Ayurvedic system of medicine only as is apparent from the material on record that at present the said activities had been confined to one room and the changed main activity is an Allopathic system of medicine which was not at all the intendment of the creator of the Trust. We leave the matter at that in these proceedings. However, having obtained the land for charitable purposes for the hospital, for no profit and for the public good, whatever system of medicine is being administered, it can be obligated with such charitable rider of free treatment as envisaged in the impugned order issued by the Government. Similarly, St. Stephens Hospital is Missionaries hospital and its very objective admittedly is to provide the charitable services free of charge but it has also become more or less a commercial venture as in the case of other hospitals inter alia involved in the instant matter, how such provision for charity is opposed is beyond comprehension, is it charity versus charity. They have to abide by the just and reasonable legal conditions for free treatment which are constitutionally envisaged also. Also urged on behalf of Moolchand Kharaiti Ram Hospital that though nine acres of land was allotted at Lajpat Nagar, it was not a prime locality at the relevant time and the land was given at the market rate. The submissions are wholly baseless and against the record and cannot be countenanced. The record belies the same. Restriction under Article 19(6) to carry on profession, trade or business under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India - As stipulation for free treatment does not amount to restriction under Article 19(6) on the right enshrined under Article 19(1)(g) and even otherwise it was not necessary to enact a statutory provision by the Government in view of existing liability as per policy/rules/statutory provisions as to ethical standards and other statutory provisions in force. Applicability of decision in Social Jurists v. Govt. of NCT - As we make it clear that the hospitals in question and other similarly situated hospitals, shall scrupulously observe the conditions framed in the order and in case any violation is reported, the same shall be viewed sternly and the lease shall be cancelled. We are constrained to pass this order as there had been resistance to wholesome policy violation of the afore-conditions contained in order dated 2.2.2012. Such violation cannot be permitted to prevail. We hereby direct the Government of NCT of Delhi to file a periodical report to this Court within a period of one year from today with respect to compliance of conditions by the respondents-hospitals and other similar hospitals in Delhi, not only governed by the decision of Social Jurists case (supra), but also governed by this judgment. Resultantly, in our considered opinion, the judgment and order passed by the High Court are not sustainable and the same is liable to be set aside and is hereby quashed. The appeals are accordingly allowed. Parties to bear their own costs.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the Circular issued by GNCTD on 2.2.2012.
2. Imposition of conditions for free treatment on hospitals allotted land at concessional rates.
3. Interpretation of "charitable purpose" and obligations of hospitals.
4. Applicability of Article 19(1)(g) and 19(6) of the Constitution.
5. Effect of the previous decision in Social Jurists v. GNCTD.

Analysis of Judgment:

1. Validity of the Circular Issued by GNCTD on 2.2.2012:
The Supreme Court examined the circular issued by the GNCTD, which directed hospitals to provide free treatment to economically weaker sections (EWS) in line with the Delhi High Court's judgment in Social Jurists v. GNCTD. The circular was based on the policy decision of 1949, which aimed to allot land to charitable institutions at concessional rates to promote public welfare. The Court upheld the circular, emphasizing that hospitals benefitting from state largesse must fulfill their obligations to provide free treatment to EWS patients.

2. Imposition of Conditions for Free Treatment on Hospitals Allotted Land at Concessional Rates:
The Court noted that hospitals like Moolchand and St. Stephens, which received land at concessional rates, were obligated to provide free treatment to 10% of indoor patients and 25% of outdoor patients. The policy decision of 1949 and subsequent lease deeds did not explicitly mention free treatment, but the charitable nature of the institutions implied such obligations. The Court held that the government could impose these conditions to ensure the hospitals fulfilled their charitable purpose.

3. Interpretation of "Charitable Purpose" and Obligations of Hospitals:
The judgment delved into the definition of "charitable purpose" as per various legal dictionaries and statutes, including the Charitable Endowments Act, 1890. The Court concluded that charitable purposes inherently include the relief of the poor and medical relief. It emphasized that hospitals holding government land at concessional rates must operate without profit motives and provide free treatment to EWS patients. The Court also applied the Cypres doctrine, allowing the government to specify the mode of charity if not defined initially.

4. Applicability of Article 19(1)(g) and 19(6) of the Constitution:
The hospitals contended that the conditions imposed by the government restricted their right to practice their profession under Article 19(1)(g). The Court rejected this argument, stating that the conditions did not constitute a restriction under Article 19(6). Instead, they were inherent obligations due to the charitable nature of the hospitals and the concessional rates at which they received land. The Court cited several precedents to support the view that such regulatory measures were permissible without necessitating statutory law.

5. Effect of the Previous Decision in Social Jurists v. GNCTD:
The Supreme Court affirmed the applicability of the Delhi High Court's decision in Social Jurists v. GNCTD, which mandated free treatment for EWS patients in hospitals allotted land at concessional rates. The Court emphasized that this decision was binding on similarly situated hospitals, even if they were not parties to the original case. The judgment underscored that the conditions for free treatment were not unilateral but followed thorough inquiries and recommendations from committees like the Justice Qureshi Committee.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court upheld the GNCTD's circular and the conditions imposed on hospitals for providing free treatment to EWS patients. It affirmed that these conditions were inherent in the charitable purpose of the hospitals and did not violate their rights under Article 19(1)(g). The judgment reinforced the binding nature of the decision in Social Jurists v. GNCTD and directed the government to ensure compliance by the hospitals.