1. Pradeep Arora v. Director, Health Department (Supreme Court, 2025)

Core Issue:

Whether private doctors/hospitals were legally “requisitioned” during COVID-19 so that insurance benefits (PMGKY scheme) could apply.

Holding:

The Supreme Court held that formal individual requisition orders are not necessary in emergencies. Requisition can be inferred from:

• Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897 invocation
• COVID-19 Regulations issued by States
• Government circulars directing private clinics/hospitals to remain operational
• Emergency public health measures

Key Principle:

Requisition of private medical services can be implicit and systemic, not necessarily a written order to each doctor.

Importance:

This case expanded the meaning of “requisition” to include functional and legal compulsion during emergencies.

2. Parmanand Katara v. Union of India (1989)

Facts:

Hospitals were refusing treatment to accident victims due to police formalities and jurisdiction issues.

Judgment:

The Supreme Court held:

• Preservation of human life is paramount
• No hospital (public or private) can refuse emergency treatment
• Procedural rules cannot override life-saving duty

Principle Relevant to Requisition:

While not directly about requisition, it establishes that:

Private medical institutions are bound by constitutional obligation (Article 21) to provide emergency care when needed by the State or society.

Impact:

Forms the constitutional basis for state interference in private healthcare during emergencies.

3. Paschim Banga Khet Mazdoor Samity v. State of West Bengal (1996)

Facts:

A patient was denied treatment in multiple government hospitals due to lack of ICU beds.

Judgment:

The Supreme Court held:

• Right to health is part of Article 21
• State is duty-bound to ensure adequate medical facilities
• Failure to provide emergency treatment amounts to violation of fundamental rights

Principle relevant to requisition:

The Court expanded State responsibility to:

Mobilize private medical infrastructure when public facilities are insufficient

Importance:

This case is often used to justify temporary use/requisition of private hospitals in emergencies.

4. State of Punjab v. Mohinder Singh Chawla (1997)

Issue:

Whether State is obligated to provide medical treatment, including in private hospitals if needed.

Judgment:

The Supreme Court held:

• Right to health is integral to right to life
• Government must provide medical assistance at State cost
• If necessary, treatment can extend to private hospitals

Principle:

This supports the State’s authority to engage or requisition private facilities when public infrastructure is inadequate.

5. People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) v. Union of India (Right to Food case, 2001 onwards orders)

Context:

Though primarily about food security, interim orders during crises included health and welfare directives.

Principle derived:

• During emergencies, State has positive duty to ensure survival rights
• Private resources may be regulated or directed for public welfare

Relevance:

Courts recognized that in extraordinary circumstances:

State may commandeer or regulate private resources (including health infrastructure) for public interest.

6. In Re: Distribution of Essential Supplies & Services During Pandemic (COVID-19 Suo Motu cases, 2020–21)

Issue:

Management of healthcare crisis and shortage of hospital beds, oxygen, ICU facilities.

Supreme Court observations:

• Central and State governments can coordinate and direct private hospitals
• Private hospitals must not refuse emergency patients
• States can regulate pricing, beds, oxygen allocation

Principle:

The Court recognized that:

Emergency healthcare requires centralized control over both public and private medical systems

Importance:

This forms the strongest modern judicial recognition of de facto requisition powers during pandemic emergencies.

7. Bombay High Court / Supreme Court in PMGKY Insurance Cases (COVID-19 Line of Cases, 2021–2025)

Example:

Pradeep Arora case again (supported by multiple High Court rulings)

Findings:

• Government circulars + epidemic regulations = constructive requisition
• Private doctors were treated as “frontline requisitioned workers”
• Even without formal appointment letters, duties were legally imposed

Principle:

Requisition can arise from statutory compulsion + administrative control, not only formal takeover.

8. Additional Supporting Principle from Disaster Management Act, 2005 cases

General judicial interpretation:

Courts have repeatedly accepted that under the Disaster Management Act:

• Government can control hospitals, beds, oxygen, ICU allocation
• Private hospitals must comply with binding directions
• Failure can attract penalties under Section 51–60 DM Act

Effect:

This provides statutory backing for temporary requisition/control of private medical facilities during disasters

CONSOLIDATED LEGAL PRINCIPLES

From all the above cases, Indian law establishes:

1. State can requisition private medical facilities when:

• Public health emergency exists
• Epidemic or disaster laws are invoked
• Public healthcare system is insufficient

2. Requisition does NOT require:

• Individual written orders to each hospital
• Permanent takeover
• Compensation always in advance

3. Requisition CAN include:

• Private hospital beds
• ICU/ventilator capacity
• Medical staff (doctors/nurses)
• Clinics and diagnostic centers
• Service obligations during emergencies

4. Constitutional basis:

• Article 21 → Right to life & health
• Article 47 → Duty of State to improve public health

FINAL CONCLUSION

Indian courts have consistently held that private medical facilities are not outside the State’s emergency control powers. In extraordinary situations like pandemics, disasters, or epidemics, the government can:

• Direct their functioning
• Treat them as requisitioned resources
• Integrate them into public health response

The most important modern authority is the Supreme Court’s COVID-19 jurisprudence (especially Pradeep Arora case), which clearly recognizes constructive requisitioning of private healthcare systems during emergencies.