The Union Health Ministry defended the constitutional validity of the 2012 Clinical Establishments Rules before the Supreme Court, arguing that price regulation of healthcare services is essential to fulfill the mandate of Article 47 (DPSP). This is a key case for understanding the balance between fundamental rights (Article 19(1)(g)) and reasonable restrictions in the interest of public health.
Exam Lens
Quick Exam Facts From News
1-Minute Revision
- ›Act & Year: Clinical Establishments (Registration and Regulation) Act, 2010
- ›Impugned Rule: Rule 9(ii) of Clinical Establishments (Central Government) Rules, 2012
- ›Target this Data: 19 states/UTs have adopted the Clinical Establishments Act, 2010; 16 states + 1 UT have their own acts.
- ›Target this Nodal Body: Union Ministry of Health & Family Welfare (defended the Rules in SC).
- ›Target this Legal Point: Rule 9(ii) of Clinical Establishments (Central Government) Rules, 2012; Article 47, Article 19(1)(g), Article 19(6) of the Constitution.
Mastered this topic? Test your knowledge with a full MCQ quiz.
Practice exam-style questions, track your score, and strengthen your recall.