Kerala High Court Questions Centre Over Long-Pending AIIMS Proposal, Says State's Existing Healthcare Can't Be A "Handicap"

The Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Soumen Sen and Justice Syam Kumar was considering writ petitions seeking establishment of AIIMS under the Pradhan Mantri Swasthya Suraksha Yojana (PMSSY).

The Court had previously asked the Centre on the criterion adopted by it for the purpose of prioritizing the establishment of AIIMS.

Today, when the matter was taken up, the Court questioned the Union Government regarding its proposal.

The Deputy Solicitor General of India (DSGI), submitted that the proposal was still at the stage of consultation and that a decision could be taken only after a decision on the continuation of the PMSSY for the next five years.

The DSGI also submitted that the Union Government was prioritising States with weaker healthcare infrastructure. Kerala, according to the Centre, had comparatively better healthcare facilities.

Hearing this,the Court orally questioned whether the Centre's position effectively meant that Kerala did not require an AIIMS.

“So, does the State of Kerala not require an AIIMS? Is that the stand of the Centre?”

The Court also questioned whether the presence of a larger number of private hospitals could be treated as a disqualification for Kerala.The Court also pointed out the high population density and asked the Centre to identify the specific criteria that Kerala had failed to satisfy.

“There are more private hospitals here, Is that a disqualification? In terms of density of population, State of Kerala is highest... what are the criterion that the State does not meet?” Court asked.

“All of them cannot go to Aster and other big big names.. Which criterion is not followed?” the Court asked further.

The Bench further questioned the logic of excluding Kerala on the ground that it had comparatively better healthcare facilities, particularly when AIIMS institutions had been established in other relatively affluent parts of the country.

“That becomes a handicap for the State? Why has Delhi AIIMS come? All affluent people are there...There are States with more than one AIIMS. There are enough reasons for Kerala to have an AIIMS.. We are not satisfied with the criteria” Court said.

The Bench also noted that the State had identified land for the proposed institution. The Centre, however, maintained that identification of land was not equivalent to a formal allocation or approval.

The Bench also questioned why the proposal had remained pending for such a long period.

The Court noted that the idea of establishing an AIIMS in Kerala dates back to June 2016. The Court noted that the State had identified locations on earlier occasions under the PMSSY scheme.

The Court's order records that on October 9, 2025, a memorandum was submitted to the Union Health Minister seeking approval for establishing AIIMS in Kozhikode district.

Despite the prolonged correspondence between the State and the Centre, the Court observed that no substantial progress had been made towards actually establishing the institution.

“The matter has been pending with the ministry for almost 10 years and apart from the exchange of correspondence, no substantial progress has been made with regard to the establishment of AIIMS in the State.” the Court noted.

The High Court, however, emphasised Kerala's population density and the need for accessible public healthcare.

“Having regard to the density of population and that the existing government hospitals will not be sufficient to provide the required facilities for the needy and poor. We expect that the government takes a conscious decision having regard to the fact that the proposal to establish the AIIMS was placed before the Central government and the matter is pending for almost 11 years now.” the order said.

The Court also recorded the assurance given by the DSGI that the Centre would review the matter concerning the establishment of AIIMS in Kerala.

The Court directed the Union Government to review the issue and take the necessary steps in relation to the proposal.

The matter has been posted after six weeks.

Counsel for Petitioner: K K Subeesh, Roy Thomas, P M Ziraj, Irfan Ziraj

Counsel for Respondent: S Biju (Sr. Panel Counsel), O M Shalina (DSGI), C Dinesh, P U Shailajan (SC-KSIDC)