SC to states: Prepare employment road map for migrants
NEW DELHI: With almost 90% of migrant workers having returned to their hometowns or villages after the lockdown enforced for the coronavirus disease (Covid-19) on March 25, the Supreme Court on Friday set out on its next task of asking states to prepare a roadmap for providing jobs to the returnees.
Reserving its order until Tuesday on the transport of stranded migrant workers, a bench of justices Ashok Bhushan, SK Kaul and MR Shah broadly indicated that its order will require states to inform the apex court, which has taken suo moto cognisance of the matter, about schemes for providing employment to migrant workers who have returned to their home towns.
Solicitor general Tushar Mehta informed the Court that around 10 million migrant workers had been transported to their destinations in 4,228 Shramik Special trains between May 1 and June 3.
On the deaths of some workers aboard the trains, Mehta informed the court that Indian Railways, in its investigations, had found that these deaths occurred because of comorbidities and not for lack of water, food or medical care.
The maximum number of
trains ended up in Bihar and Uttar Pradesh and some 171 trains are scheduled to run in the coming days to transport the remaining migrant workers who remain stranded. Mehta said 90% of migrant workers had returned to their destinations and based on demand from the states, trains will be provided within a short notice period of 24 hours.
The bench indicated that it would not prolong the issue concerning transportation and would be fixing a deadline of 15 days for states to inform it of the number of workers who are still
The Supreme Court on Friday heard two petitions on capping the cost of treatment of Covid-19 in private hospitals. It has asked the Centre and private hospitals to respond, and also suggested that hospitals run by charitable trusts on land provided by the government at nominal rates be asked to provide such treatment at prices fixed under the government’s Ayushman Bharat insurance scheme.
The first petition it heard was a public interest case filed by Avishek Goenka who requested the Court to fix a cap on the amount to be charged by private hospitals for treating Covid-19 patients.
The petitioner argued: “The fee charged by private hospitals is so exorbitant that the quantum becomes a deterrent for patients to avail treatment.” The bench of Justices Ashok Bhushan, MR Shah and V Ramasubramanian, which conducted the hearing through videoconferencing, issued notice to the Centre. In its order it noted the demand of the petitioner to frame a scheme for checking unregulated treatment cost for Covid-19 patients in private hospitals. The matter was posted for hearing next week.
The bench was oblivious to the fact that a similar matter was pending consideration with another bench of the top court headed by CJI. Incidentally, this matter too came up for hearing minutes later.
This was a petition filed by an advocate Sachin Jain seeking a cap on the cost of Covid treatment by private hospitals. He argued that private charitable hospitals which received land at concessional or free rates are obliged to serve citizens and not make profit at a time of crisis. Jain filed a subsequent application asking the court to consider directing private hospitals to charge Covid patients as per Ayushman Bharat health scheme. He said that under the scheme the treatment cost is around ₹4,000 per day.
The bench of CJI SA Bobde, AS Bopanna and Hrishikesh Roy asked Centre to explore this suggestion. Its earlier suggestion on providing free treatment in private hospitals was turned down by the Centre. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta told the court that private hospitals are governed by The Clinical Establishments Act, 2010 which does not permit Centre to make such a direction. Commenting on the applicability of Ayushman Bharat, Mehta said that the scheme has identified categories of beneficiaries and will not apply to all individuals.
The bench said, “We are talking of charitable hospitals who took big pieces of land from government to establish hospitals and are making profits. Why can’t they be asked to provide treatment at this tariff (of Ayushman Bharat)?”
Private hospitals represented by senior advocates Harish Salve and Mukul Rohatgi informed the bench that hospitals that took land on concessional rates are already providing 25% free beds. Salve added in these times, earnings of private hospitals are down by 60-70 %. The court fixed the matter for hearing after two weeks to receive responses from the Centre and the united front of private hospitals. It also allowed NGOs Drug Action Network and Jan Swasthya Abhiyan to give their suggestions in this regard.