Chandigarh: The Punjab & Haryana High Court has dismissed the petition to quash the layout plan for a sector in Panchkula, which included a doctor's clinic in its vicinity. The court emphasized that access to timely medical services is a fundamental right.

The petition was filed by the House Owners Welfare Association, which sought to invalidate the 2003 sectoral development plan that designated space for a clinic near Sector 17, Panchkula.

The petitioner also sought the quashing of the advertisement and the e-auction for nursing home sites. They argued that they were never informed that institutional or clinic sites could be designated near residential areas. Additionally, the Association raised accessibility concerns, as the clinic was located at the end of a narrow 5-meter road.

However, the Bench, consisting of Justice Sureshwar Thakur and Justice Vikas Suri, dismissed these objections, recognizing the broader benefits of the clinic in promoting healthcare access.

Also Read: High Court issues notice to State, CBI, Medical University over irregularities in GMC recruitment

According to the Live Law, Justice Sureshwar Thakur and Justice Vikas Suri noted, "when the consultancy services to be provided at the clinic sites, may become availed by the elderly people, senior citizens or disabled people, especially when in absence thereof, it would lead them to travel to long distances for receiving OPD consultancies."

The court pointed out that the inclusion of medical facilities within the colony would reduce the need for residents to travel long distances to overcrowded hospitals or medical centers. It would also ensure that patients have better access to timely care.

By doing so, the Court ensured that the fundamental right to health and access to timely medical care were upheld. As a result, the Court found no reason to object to the proposed layout plan.

The Court further affirmed that the proposed layout plan aligned with Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which guarantees the fundamental right to life and personal liberty. By promoting healthcare facilities within residential neighborhoods, the plan sought to enhance the well-being of the citizens.

Also Read: Madras High Court dismisses plea seeking earmarking of land for Tenkasi medical college

According to Live Law, "The making of the impugned demarcation plan/sectoral development plan, obviously appears to be made with an insightful vision, but for promoting the health of the citizens of the locality concerned. The reason for so stating becomes embodied in the factum that the instant clinic sites, thus visibly augment the health concerns of the elderly citizens, as also of the ailing children. Consequently, therebys naturally the right to life, as enunciated in Article 21 of the Constitution of India, but also would become well furthered," it added.

Addressing the petitioners' concerns about traffic congestion and accessibility, the court remarked that these issues should have been raised when the plots were initially purchased in 2004, as the petitioners were aware of the layout plan at that time.

Furthermore, the bench opined that since the right to practice a business or occupation is a fundamental right, the respondents concerned are entitled to it, as they were allotted the clinic sites in question.

In conclusion, the Bench rejected the petitioner's request to quash the sectoral development plan.

“The imposition of a 26% reciprocal tariff on Indian medical device exports to the U.S. may pose a significant challenge to the sector's growth. Historically, India has been a key supplier of cost-effective, high-quality medical devices to the U.S., primarily in low-value high-volume consumables categories. However, this new tariff may possibly impact Indian Medical Devices exports and we have to explore windows of opportunities where USA has been seeking to diversify its supply chain dependence on any one nation,” stated Mr Rajiv Nath, Forum Coordinator, Association of Indian Medical Device Industry (AiMeD).

In 2023-24, India’s medical device exports to the U.S. were valued at $714.38 million, while imports from the U.S. into India stood significantly higher at $1,519.94 million, according to data shared by the Export Promotion Council of Medical Devices.

Comparative Tariff Rates on Medical Device Exports to U.S.:

India: 26%

China: 34%

Europe: 20%

Vietnam: 46%

Taiwan: 32%

Japan: 24%

South Korea: 25%

Switzerland: 31%

Indonesia: 32%

Malaysia: 24%

Turkey: 10%

Despite the tariff hurdles, some Indian companies see limited price advantages.

“While India may seemingly gain a marginal price advantage over China (8%) in certain low-risk, high-volume consumables, the real impact may not be significant if our prices were higher than 15% and the impact has to be further studied compared to other competing nations,” stated Mr Himanshu Baid, Managing Director, Polymedicure.

He added that regulatory barriers in the U.S. present even greater challenges than tariffs.

“Despite the tariff challenges, India's primary obstacle remains non-tariff barriers rather than tariffs themselves. Regulatory hurdles in the U.S. are steep, with FDA approval costs ranging from $9,280 to over $540,000, whereas U.S. exporters face relatively minimal costs when entering India. Addressing these imbalances through bilateral collaboration is crucial.”

Industry leaders are calling for strategic intervention by the Indian government.

“As emphasized by our Hon’ble Prime Minister, India must prioritize healthcare security by strengthening domestic manufacturing and reducing dependency on foreign markets,” stated Nath.

“We request Government of India’s support in bilateral negotiations for a balanced approach to tariffs and regulatory policies as an essential requirement to position India as a competitive global player in the medical device industry,” he added.

AiMeD emphasized that the path forward lies in fair-trade mechanisms.

“These high tariffs imposed by USA will definitely provide protection to US-based manufacturers to the medical device industry there and give them an overnight boost to maximise capacity utilisation and expansion for capturing a higher market share in their domestic market. These high Tariffs coupled with the non-tariff barriers to access private healthcare market by way of US FDA regulations and the Buy American policy for their Government procurement will possibly make USA less attractive for marketing and more attractive as an investment proposition in some products. However there are many products in low risk, low priced high volume consumables and disposables where manufacturing had pretty much been reduced in USA to a negligible level and manufacturing operations moved to Mexico, Puerto Rico, Ireland etc where it may take 3–5 years or even longer for manufacturing capacity to move back to USA. It’s in these products that Indian manufacturers will find a natural competitive advantage to some level in the short – medium term. Maybe India needs to learn from USA on driving investments into manufacturing ”

A new concern flagged by Indian exporters is the misuse of third-country routing to bypass U.S. tariffs.

“The biggest fear for Indian exporters being communicated to me will be the 3rd country routing of exports to USA with 10% duty like UK and UAE by competing nation’s manufacturers like China as was already being done.”

On the question of the path forward in light of the U.S. Trade Representative’s (USTR) tariffs, AiMeD suggested a multi-pronged approach.

“India's response to the Trump reciprocal tariff of 26% should be multi-faceted.

Overall, India's response to the Trump reciprocal tariff of 26% should be focused on promoting domestic manufacturing, diversifying exports to countries other than USA, improving trade infrastructure, reducing inward freight haulage costs and engaging diplomatically with USA for a win-win collaboration,” stated Mr Rajiv Nath of AiMeD.