“Itis not for the citizen to prove the lack of governance, it is for the State toprove that governance was delivered within lawful means.”
When funding is no excuse: Legal
steps against administrative inertia
In the democratic framework of India, public functionaries are not merely custodians of policy; they are bound by constitutional and statutory obligations to execute welfare schemes efficiently and in good faith. The recent exposure of the South Goa District Hospital (SGDH) as a facility incapable of delivering prompt stroke intervention care has revived concern about bureaucratic complacency, executive lethargy, and systemic failure. While patient grievances often get lost in institutional indifference, the Constitution of India empowers citizens to question, probe, and challenge maladministration through legal instruments both preventive and punitive.
Of tenders, circulars and executive omissions:
Every hospital under public funding operates through a framework of notifications, tenders, circulars, and administrative directions. These instruments reflect the application of public funds and the implementation of executive decisions. In the case of SGDH, a cursory examination of government tenders floated over the past two years reveals several allocations towards medical equipment procurement, ambulance services, neurological units, and staff recruitment. Yet, the hospital remains functionally paralysed, particularly during triage hours when patients require urgent evaluation and intervention.
For instance, despite the issuance of central schemes like the Pradhan Mantri Swasthya Suraksha Yojana (PMSSY) and the Ayushman Bharat Health Infrastructure Mission (AB-HIM), little to no systemic overhaul has occurred at SGDH. The blame, as publicly deflected by authorities, often falls upon “staff shortage” or “non-availability of specialists,” when in fact, tenders for recruitment have been repeatedly floated, but are either under-responded to or awarded through questionable procedures. This mismatch between sanctioned tenders and ground realities indicates administrative inertia rather than mere financial constraint.
Filing RTIs to establish a paper trail:
The Right to Information Act, 2005 provides a formidable toolkit to any public-spirited citizen intending to investigate the role of the government in the deterioration of public health infrastructure. RTIs can be filed to obtain certified copies of:
- Tenders floated, awarded, or cancelled by the Directorate of Health Services and Public Works Department (PWD);
- Circulars regarding appointment and transfer of specialist doctors at SGDH;
- Equipment procurement records and minutes of purchase committee meetings;
- Emergency response policies and triage protocols notified at SGDH;
- Expenditure reports under PMSSY, DDSSY, and other centrally funded schemes.
The mere availability of these documents can help trace whether budgetary approvals were followed by executive action or if these remained on paper. In legal parlance, such evidence forms the basis of establishing culpable negligence by omission.
The disproportionate assets angle:
In every environment where executive inertia persists alongside large-scale funding, the possibility of corruption cannot be ignored. A lawful probe into the assets of close aides and contractors linked with the Health Ministry may reveal disproportionate growth inconsistent with legitimate sources of income. Although the jurisdiction to prosecute lies with investigative agencies and the judiciary, the initial signal must come from civil society or the press.
Filing public complaints under the Goa Lokayukta Act, 2011 or submitting asset verification requests under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act when the assets pertain to public functionaries suspected of misuse of office can lay the foundation for broader inquiry. Where public procurement rules under the General Financial Rules, 2017 or the Goa Public Procurement Act, 2013 are flouted, the matter assumes dimensions of financial impropriety, warranting deeper scrutiny.
Administrative capacity and the legal expectation:
A Health Minister in any jurisdiction cannot escape liability by citing staffing shortfalls or public apathy. The law places a positive obligation upon the executive to ensure that services are delivered with reasonable efficiency, especially where public health is involved. The doctrine of legitimate expectation evolved through judgments like Union of India v. Hindustan Development Corporation [(1993) 3 SCC 499] presumes that a citizen who enters a public hospital expects a minimum threshold of care and infrastructure consistent with the state's financial ability and planning documents.
If plans, budgets, and tenders exist, yet services do not, then the inaction becomes justiciable i.e., capable of being challenged in court or before quasi-judicial bodies like the Lokayukta. Inaction, when it leads to avoidable injury or death, may also amount to civil wrongs under the law of torts or even invoke penal liability for acts endangering life.
The legal road ahead - Presenting the case before the Lokayukta:
The Lokayukta in Goa as well as every other State functions under statutory empowerment to investigate complaints against public functionaries for abuse of power, maladministration, or corruption. It has the powers of a civil court and can recommend prosecution, suspension, or administrative sanctions.
Any citizen, armed with documents obtained through RTIs, audit reports, tender anomalies, or evidence of delayed executive response, can file a detailed complaint before the Lokayukta. While it may not lead to immediate removal of a minister, it compels public disclosure of facts and makes dereliction visible in the public domain. The power of facts, even when not immediately punitive, lies in their capacity to activate institutional accountability and judicial oversight.
Conclusion: A legal challenge has been set in motion:
The problem at SGDH is not the lack of funds, it is the lack of will and integrity. The next step is not only to express remorse but to act. Through RTIs, public complaints, and legal scrutiny, it becomes possible to convert citizen discontent into structured legal action. The Health Ministers of various jurisdictions may have dodged accountability so far, but the law still offers tools to press for answers. And the final arena for such accountability where truth meets law is the Lokayukta.
