Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

2. Although the chief protagonists in the two petitions are the two mothers and their babies, the petitions highlight the gaps in implementation that affect a large number of similarly placed women and children elsewhere in the country. The petitions reveal the unsatisfactory state of implementation of the schemes in the two „high performing states‟ of Haryana and the National Capital Territory of Delhi (NCT of Delhi). These petitions are essentially about the protection and enforcement of the basic, fundamental and human right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution. These petitions focus on two inalienable survival rights that form part of the right to life: the right to health (which would include the right to access and receive a minimum standard of treatment and care in public health facilities) and in particular the reproductive rights of the mother. The other right which calls for immediate protection and enforcement in the context of the poor is the right to food.

19. A conspectus of the above orders would show that the Supreme Court has time and again emphasised the importance of the effective implementation of the above schemes meant for the poor. They underscore the interrelatedness of the „right to food‟ which is what the main PUCL Case was about, and the right to reproductive health of the mother and the right to health of the infant child. There could not be a better illustration of the indivisibility of basic human rights as enshrined in the Constitution of India. Particularly in the context of a welfare State, where the central focus of these centrally sponsored schemes is the economically and socially disadvantaged sections of society, the above orders of the Supreme Court have to be understood as preserving, protecting and enforcing the different facets of the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution. As already noted, these W.P.(C) Nos. 8853 of 2008 & 10700 of 2009 page 12 of 51 petitions focus on two inalienable survival rights that form part of the right to life. One is the right to health, which would include the right to access government (public) health facilities and receive a minimum standard of treatment and care. In particular this would include the enforcement of the reproductive rights of the mother and the right to nutrition and medical care of the newly born child and continuously thereafter till the age of about six years. The other facet is the right to food which is seen as integral to the right to life and right to health.

20. The right to health forming an inalienable component of the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution has been settled in two important decisions of the Supreme Court: Pt. Parmanand Katara v. Union of India (1989) 4 SCC 286 and Paschim Banga Khet Majoor Samiti v. State of West Bengal (1996) 4 SCC 37. The orders in the PUCL Case are a continuation of the efforts of the Supreme Court at protecting and enforcing the right to health of the mother and the child and underscoring the interrelatedness of those rights with the right to food. This is consistent with the international human rights law which is briefly discussed hereafter.

27. The orders in the PUCL Case implicitly recognize and enforce the fundamental right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution of the child and the mother. This includes the right to health, reproductive health and the right to food. In effect, the Supreme Court has spelt out what the "minimum core" of the right to health and food is, and also spelt out, consistent with international human rights law, the "obligations of conduct" and the "obligations of result" of the Union of India, the States and the UTs. While recognizing the indivisibility of civil rights and social and economic rights, the Supreme Court has made them enforceable in courts of law by using the device of a "continuing mandamus." On their part, the High Courts in this country would be obligated to carry forth the mandate of the orders of the Supreme Court to ensure the implementation of those orders within the States and UTs. This then forms the background to this Court‟s intervention in these petitions.