Supreme Court Directs Apollo Hospital to Respond to Delhi Government Report on Lease Violations
The Supreme Court of India has directed Indraprastha Apollo Hospital to submit its response to a Delhi government report that found serious breaches of the land lease conditions related to the treatment of poor patients. The court’s directive comes after an expert committee revealed significant non-compliance with the hospital’s legal obligations under its land lease agreement.
Background of the Case
The matter originates from a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by the All India Lawyers Union before the Delhi High Court, alleging that Apollo Hospital failed to provide free medical facilities to Economically Weaker Section (EWS) patients as mandated under the lease terms.
The Delhi High Court, in its 2009 judgment, had directed Apollo Hospital to comply with the conditions of its lease deed, which required the hospital to reserve a fixed quota of free medical services for underprivileged patients. Dissatisfied with the High Court’s order, the hospital—operated by Indraprastha Medical Corporation Limited (IMCL)—approached the Supreme Court in appeal.
Lease Terms and Legal Obligations
In April 1988, the Apollo Group entered into a 30-year lease agreement with the Delhi Government for constructing a multi-specialty hospital on a 15-acre land parcel in Sarita Vihar, at a nominal lease rate of ₹1 per month.
As per the lease conditions:
-
The hospital was required to set aside at least 33% of inpatient beds and 40% of outpatient department (OPD) services for free treatment of EWS patients.
-
It was also obligated to provide free diagnostic facilities to one-third of the total 600-bed capacity.
These provisions were designed to ensure that the subsidized land granted for public welfare would translate into affordable healthcare access for the poor.
Findings of the Expert Committee
Following the Supreme Court’s order in March 2024, an inspection team comprising four doctors led by Dr. Anil Aggarwal of GB Pant Institute of Postgraduate Medical Education and Research (GIPMER) was constituted by the Delhi government.
The team inspected the hospital on May 30, June 10, and June 16, reviewing five years of records on EWS patient admissions and treatments.
According to the committee’s report:
-
The hospital had extended less than 10% of its services to EWS patients—far below the required 40% OPD and 33% inpatient quota.
-
EWS patients were charged for medicines and consumables instead of receiving them free, as per the lease condition.
-
Some patients were billed 20% of consumables used in diagnostics, and others were directed to purchase medicines externally.
This amounted to a direct violation of the hospital’s contractual and public service obligations.
Supreme Court’s Directive
A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi took the Delhi government’s report on record. The Additional Solicitor General (ASG) S.D. Sanjay presented the findings before the bench.
The Court has now granted Apollo Hospital three weeks to file its response to the report and listed the matter for hearing in the second week of December 2025.
The bench observed:
“The petitioner (Indraprastha Medical Corporation Limited) is at liberty to file a response to the report within three weeks.”
Government’s Position and Lease Renewal
The Delhi government has informed the Supreme Court that Apollo’s 30-year lease expired on July 31, 2023, and any further renewal will depend on the hospital’s compliance with the EWS treatment obligations. The committee’s findings are expected to play a critical role in determining the renewal of the land lease.
Legal and Constitutional Provisions Involved
This case involves an intersection of public trust principles, contractual obligations, and constitutional rights:
-
Article 14 (Right to Equality): The failure to provide free treatment to EWS patients amounts to a denial of equal access to healthcare.
-
Article 21 (Right to Life): The right to health is an integral component of Article 21, as recognized in Consumer Education and Research Centre v. Union of India (1995) and Paschim Banga Khet Mazdoor Samity v. State of West Bengal (1996).
-
Article 47 (Directive Principles): Imposes a duty on the State to raise the level of nutrition and public health.
Statutory references include:
-
Indian Contract Act, 1872 – Violation of lease terms can amount to breach of contract.
-
Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – Governs leasehold obligations, allowing the lessor (Delhi government) to enforce compliance or deny renewal.
Judicial precedents reinforce that land allotted at concessional rates for public purposes cannot be misused for profit. The Supreme Court’s judgment in Akhil Bharat Goseva Sangh v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2006) emphasized that when land is granted for public welfare, non-compliance with conditions warrants revocation or remedial action.
Judicial Precedents Supporting Accountability
Several landmark judgments uphold the principle that institutions granted public resources must fulfill their social commitments:
-
Common Cause v. Union of India (1996) – Public resources must be used for the benefit of society and not for private enrichment.
-
M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (2004) – The Court reaffirmed the State’s responsibility to ensure that public welfare obligations tied to land allotments are met.
-
Asha v. Pt. B.D. Sharma University of Health Sciences (2012) – Recognized healthcare as a facet of the right to life, mandating equitable access to medical services.
Conclusion: Healthcare Accountability at Crossroads
The Apollo Hospital lease case raises crucial questions about corporate accountability, public trust, and the ethical use of public land.
As the matter progresses, the Supreme Court’s decision will not only determine Apollo’s compliance but may also set a precedent for private hospitals operating on public land across India.
The outcome could reshape how India enforces social obligations in healthcare, balancing private profit with public duty under constitutional morality.

Comments
Post a Comment