The Delhi government has told the Supreme Court that 107 hospitals in the capital have provisions for free treatment for economically weaker section (EWS) patients, after questions were raised over whether several institutions were complying with obligations linked to concessional land allotments.
In an affidavit submitted before the court, the government said 51 hospitals were already facing scrutiny over allegations that they had not followed the free-treatment requirement. It added that information obtained from the Delhi Development Authority, the Municipal Corporation of Delhi and the Land and Development Office had led to the identification of 56 additional hospitals.
The government said notices had recently been sent to 28 of these newly identified hospitals. The affidavit did not state in the supplied report what action would follow against hospitals found non-compliant or specify a deadline for their responses.
The issue arises from a 2018 Supreme Court judgment concerning hospitals established on land leased or allotted at concessional rates. Under the requirement described in the affidavit, such hospitals must provide free treatment to 10 per cent of their in-patient department patients and 25 per cent of their out-patient department patients from economically weaker sections.
The figures place the compliance question within Delhi’s wider system of public obligations attached to subsidised land. Hospitals that receive land-related concessions are not treated solely as private healthcare facilities under the court’s framework; they also carry a service responsibility towards eligible patients who may otherwise struggle to access treatment.
The government’s latest filing indicates that the administration is using records from multiple land and civic authorities to identify institutions covered by the requirement. The involvement of the DDA, MCD and Land and Development Office is significant because the relevant hospitals may have received land through different administrative channels and under different records.
For patients, the central practical issue is whether the entitlement can be accessed at the hospital level and whether eligible people know which facilities are covered. The affidavit, as reported, identifies the number of hospitals and the notices issued but does not provide hospital-wise details, the number of EWS patients treated or the nature of the alleged violations.
The 51 hospitals already under the court’s scrutiny and the 56 additional hospitals identified through government records together account for the 107 facilities cited in the affidavit. The government’s next steps will depend on the responses to the notices and the further proceedings before the Supreme Court.
