The Supreme Court on Tuesday declined to interfere with the Delhi High Court's stay order on the Arvind Kejriwal government's decision to reserve 80% ICU beds in private hospitals for Covid-19 patients in view of the increasing number of patients.
Following a special sitting during Diwali break, a bench of Justices Ashok Bhushan and B R Gavavi asked the Delhi government's counsel Additional Solicitor General Sanjay Jain to approach the Delhi High Court for expediting the hearing in the matter.
The top court asked the High Court to take up the matter on November 12. Jain said there is an urgent requirement of hearing the matter since the situation in Delhi regarding the necessity of providing ICU beds to Covid-19 patients is increasing day by day. He said the High Court posted the matter for consideration on November 27.
The Delhi government challenged the validity of the High Court's stay order of October 9 on the direction for reserving beds while acting on a petition filed by the Association of Healthcare Providers (India) and others.
Jain also said the Diwali festivities and mingling of persons during this period may see a huge spike in Covid cases.
The Delhi government said that it plans to keep beds reserved for two weeks more and thereafter, depending on the situation, will withdraw the order.
Jain said that in the last few days, cases have crossed the 7,000 mark. To this, the bench replied: "It was 10,000 earlier. It is a fluctuating number. You have not stated any material on record to show no beds are available for Covid-19 patients."
Jain submitted that a lot of people come from outside and avail treatment in private hospitals and use ICU beds. He said that the expert committee suggested Delhi needs 6,000 ICU beds and they had only 3,500 beds.
He added that with the notification, the government can add more beds. "Out of 133 hospitals, only 33 hospitals have been reserved," Jain said.
Senior advocate Maninder Singh, representing the Association Of Healthcare Providers, submitted that the matter is listed before the single bench of the High Court later this month and he has no objection if the matter is taken up on an early date by a division bench of the High Court.