The Impressive TimesNew Delhi : The Supreme Court on Friday, January 17, stayed an order directing the Delhi government to sign a memorandum of understanding (MoU) with the Union Health Ministry by January 5 for the implementation of the PM-Ayushman Bharat Health Infrastructure Mission (PM-ABHIM). The bench, consisting of Justices BR Gavai and Augustine George Masih, also issued notices to the Centre and other concerned parties, seeking their responses to a plea filed by the Delhi government challenging the Delhi High Court’s direction.
The Delhi High Court had, on December 24, 2024, directed the Delhi government to sign the MoU, which would facilitate the implementation of PM-ABHIM in the national capital. However, the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) government, led by Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal, had raised concerns about the legality and fairness of the directive. Senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing the Delhi government, argued that the High Court’s order was unfair and inappropriate, as it effectively forced the Delhi government into a policy decision without adequate consultation or consideration of the local government’s autonomy.
Singhvi emphasized that the Delhi government was being compelled to sign the MoU with the Centre, which he described as an overreach into the domain of state-level governance. “How can the High Court force me (Delhi government) on a policy matter to sign an MoU with the Central government?” Singhvi asked, raising important questions about the balance of power between the state and central governments in implementing national health schemes.
The Delhi government has expressed concerns over the terms of the MoU and its ability to implement the scheme effectively within the city’s healthcare system. While PM-ABHIM aims to strengthen healthcare infrastructure across India, the Delhi government argues that it should have more flexibility in its implementation, tailored to the specific needs of the city, especially given its existing healthcare initiatives under the Delhi government’s own schemes.
The issue has now been placed before the Supreme Court, which has agreed to examine the matter in detail, staying the High Court’s order for the time being. The Centre and other parties involved in the case have been given time to file their responses, with the next hearing likely to focus on the broader constitutional and legal implications of the case.
No Comments: