Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: right to life in Phoolmati vs State Medical And Healthors on 20 February, 2024Matching Fragments
6. In spite of having the aforementioned several beneficial Scheme for the welfare of pregnant females and infants, the respondents have miserably failed to discharge their duties in providing the benefits of these Schemes to the petitioner and her newly born infants. On account of gross and unwarranted act of the officials of the respondents, the petitioner has been made to suffer and she has lost her two newly born babies.
7. Right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India (hereinafter shall be referred to as "the Constitution") includes the right to lead a dignified and meaningful life and right to health is an integral facet of this right. In C.E.S.C. Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Subhash Chandra Bose & Ors. reported in (1992) 1 SCC 441, while dealing with right to health of workers, it was held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that right to health must be considered as an aspect of social justice inferred by not only Article 21 of the Constitution but also the Directive Principles of State Policy and International Conventions to which India was a party. [2024:RJ-JP:7673] (10 of 25) [CW-8155/2016]
8. Similarly, the bare minimum obligation of the State is to ensure the preservation of the right to life and health, as the right to health is an integral part of right to life.
9. In Bandhua Mukti Morcha Vs. UOI & Ors. reported in (1984) 3 SCC 161, the Hon'ble Supreme Court underlined the obligation of the State to ensure that the fundamental rights of the weaker section of the society are not exploited owing to their position in the society.
10. But, in the present case, this right of the petitioner has been grossly violated by the respondents merely because she belongs to the weaker section of the society and she was working in a brick kiln at the relevant time when this unfortunate incident has occurred.
11. 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 Vs. Union of India reported in (1989) 4 SCC 286 and Paschim Banga Khet Majoor Samiti v. State of West Bengal reported in (1996) 4 SCC 37. The orders in the case of PUCL Vs. UOI in WP (C) No.196/2001 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 inter-relatedness of those rights with the right to food. This is consistent with the international human rights law which is briefly discussed hereafter. [2024:RJ-JP:7673] (11 of 25) [CW-8155/2016]
[2024:RJ-JP:7673] (18 of 25) [CW-8155/2016]
20. Our Constitution envisages the establishment of a welfare state at the Federal Level as well as the State Level. In a welfare state, the primary duty of the Government is to secure the welfare of the people. Providing adequate medical facilities for the people is an essential part of the obligations undertaken by the Government in a welfare state. The Government discharges this obligation by running Hospitals and Community Health Centres which provide medical care to the persons seeking to avail these facilities. Article 21 of the Constitution imposes an obligation on the part of the State to provide a safeguard for right to life of every person. Preservation of human life is of paramount importance of every welfare state. The Government Hospitals run by the State and the Medical Officers and the Staff employed therein are duty bound to extend medical assistance for preserving human life in all possible manner. Failure on the part of a Government Hospital and the Staff deputed therein to provide timely medical treatment to a person, who is in need thereof, results in gross violation of his/her right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. Here in the instant case, this right to life of the petitioner and her newly born infant babies has been grossly violated by the respondents as they have miserably failed to give effective implementation of these beneficial Schemes which are meant to save pregnant women and infants from mortality.