The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad on October 7, 2025, dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) that sought directions for private hospitals in Greater NOIDA and Uttar Pradesh to provide free services. The Division Bench, comprising Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Kshitij Shailendra, ruled that a PIL cannot be used for a “fishing inquiry” and must be founded on concrete evidence, not assumptions.
The judgment was delivered in the case of Ashvani Goyal v. State of Uttar Pradesh and 5 others (Public Interest Litigation (PIL) No. 3149 of 2025).
Background of the Case
The petitioner, Ashvani Goyal, had filed the PIL seeking a direction to the respondents to ensure that all private hospitals in Greater NOIDA and Uttar Pradesh provide 25% Out-Patient Department (OPD) services and 10% In-Patient Department (IPD) services free of cost.
The Court noted that this was the petitioner’s second attempt with the same plea. An earlier petition had been dismissed on September 16, 2025, after the Court expressed dissatisfaction “with regard to the bona fide and credentials of the petitioner.”
Arguments of the Parties
The petitioner was represented by counsels Abhinava Krishna Srivastava and Siddhartha Krishna Bakhshi. The respondents were represented by the Chief Standing Counsel (C.S.C.) and counsels Akanksha Sharma, Anjali Upadhya, Pranjal Mehrotra, and Rajesh Kumar Singh.
Counsel for the petitioner attempted to base their arguments on a Delhi High Court order in Social Jurists, a Lawyers Group Vs. Government of NCT of Delhi and others. They argued that a similar direction for free treatment had been issued in that case.
However, the petitioner’s counsel conceded that they did not have the letters of allotment for the hospitals in question which might contain such a condition. They submitted that the petitioner had attempted to obtain these documents under the Right to Information (RTI) Act but had not yet received them.
Court’s Analysis and Observations
The Bench began its analysis by stating, “A perusal of the petition indicates that there is no basis disclosed in the petition for claiming the said relief.”
The Court distinguished the Delhi High Court case cited by the petitioner. It observed that in the Social Jurists case, the requirement for free treatment “were indicated in the letters of allotment to the private hospital.” In contrast, the Court pointed out that “no such indication is available in the present petition.”
Addressing the petitioner’s submission regarding the pending RTI application, the High Court was unequivocal. It stated that if the petitioner’s application was pending or had been rejected, the petitioner must first pursue remedies available under the RTI Act. The judgment affirmed that a cause of action could only be pleaded after obtaining the necessary supporting documents.
In a significant observation on the nature of public interest litigation, the Court held: “Filing of the petition, in the nature of public interest for the purpose of fishing inquiry, cannot be permitted.”
Decision of the Court
Based on these findings, the Court concluded that there was no valid reason to entertain the petition. “In view of the above, we do not find any reason to entertain the present petition, the same is, therefore, dismissed,” the final order stated.
