NAME: SWAPNIL MORESHWAR TEMBHURNE.

MOBILE NO: +91 9920-4538-77

TITLE: RIGHT TO HEALTH – A CONSTITUTIONAL

PERSPECTIVE

GROUP-I: THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

UNIVERSITY: “DEPARTMENT OF LAW”

(UNIVERSITY OF MUMBAI)

ACADEMIC: NOVEMBER -2023

SUBMITTED TO: PROFFESSOR ASADULLAH SIR

 TABLE OF CONTENT

SR. NO. TOPIC PAGE NO.

1 INTRODUCTION
2. CONSTITUTIONALITY OF ARTICLE 21
3. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND AND JURISPRUDENCE OF RIGHT TO
HEALTH
4. THE BASIC REQUIREMENTS TO BE FULFILLED IN PROVIDING RIGHT TO
HEALTH
5. CORE COMPONENTS OF THE RIGHT TO HEALTH
6. RIGHT TO HEALTH UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW
7. THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ON THE RIGHT TO HEALTH CARE
8. HOW FAR INDIA HAS BEEN SUCCESSFUL IN IMPLEMENTING THE
RIGHT TO HEALTH
9. INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS PERTAINING TO RIGHT TO HEALTH
10. WHY IN THE NEWS...? KEY FEATURES AND JUDICIAL
PRONOUNCEMENT
11. SIGNIFICANCE

12. CHALLENGES RELATED TO HEALTH IN INDIA

13. WAY FORWARD

14. THE ROLE OF INDIAN SUPREME COURT IN PROTECTING THE HEALTH

15. CONCLUSION
ABSTRACT;

Health is the most important factor in national development. It is a condition of a

person’s physical and mental state and signifies freedom from any disease or pain.
Right to health is a vital right without which none can exercise one’s basic human
rights. The Government is under obligation to protect the health of the people
because there is close nexus between Health and the quality of life of a person.
There are various provisions under the Constitution of India which deal with the
Health of the Public at large. The founding fathers of the Indian Constitution
rightly inserted Directive principles of State Policy (DPSP) with a view to protect
the health of the public at large. Health is the most precious prerequisite for
happiness.

“Health care is not a privilege. It's a right. It's a right as fundamental as civil rights.
It's a right as fundamental as giving every child a chance to get a public
education.”

---Rod Blagojevich

Everyone has “the right...to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of
physical and mental health”.

-International Convention on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Article

12

“Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-
being of himself and his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care
and necessary social services...”
-Article 25 of the UN Declaration of the Human Right

1. INTRODUCTION

Right to Health as a Fundamental Right Guaranteed by the Constitution

of India

Health is one of the basic requirements of human being. Nowadays India is facing
problem of degradation of health. The Constitution of India is supreme law to
govern the whole Nation. The condition of health is worsening day by day in spite
of various health schemes and policies. The Supreme Court is performing Nobel
function of interpretation of provisions of Constitution. The framers of Indian
Constitution have rightly inserted various provisions regarding health of public.
Further the role of Indian Supreme Court is significant in protecting health of
people at large with the help of various decisions. The effective implementation of
Laws enacted based on Constitutional provisions will control the present problem.

Every State in the modern era has its own Constitution to operate its organs
according to some fundamental rules. The Constitution of India is the law of the
land. The fundamental rule governs the relationship between State and its citizens.
The very purpose behind Constitutional framework is to achieve goals set out in its
Preamble. The Preamble to the Constitution of India confers rights on citizens,
imposes duties on them and issues directives to State to protect the rights of its
citizens. The Constitution of India is the basic law of India; it aims to secure social,
economic and political justice. Among the various rights under Indian
Constitution, Right to Health is an important one. Development of the nation
depends upon the healthy population. The basic law of the State safeguards
individual rights and promotes national wellbeing. It is the duty of the State to
provide an effective mechanism for the welfare of the public at large.

Health is the most important factor in national development. It is a condition of a

person’s physical and mental state and signifies freedom from any disease or pain.
Right to health is a vital right without which none can exercise one’s basic human
rights. The Government is under obligation to protect the health of the people
because there is close nexus between Health and the quality of life of a person.
There are various provisions under the Constitution of India which deal with the
Health of the Public at large. The founding fathers of the Indian Constitution
rightly inserted Directive principles of State Policy (DPSP) with a view to protect
the health of the public at large. Health is the most precious prerequisite for
happiness

According to Article 25(1) of Universal Declaration of Human Rights “Everyone

has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of
himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and
necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment,
sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in
circumstances beyond his control”. The generally satisfactory meaning of health is
that given by the WHO in the introduction of its constitution, as indicated by the
World Health Organization, “Health is a condition of complete physical, mental
and social prosperity and not only the nonappearance of disease”. As of late, this
announcement has been intensified to incorporate the capacity to lead a ‘socially
and economically productive life’.

Earlier the Right to Health was a part of Directive Principles of State Policy
(DPSP). Article 38 of Indian Constitution imposes an obligation on the State that
states will make sure about a social request for the advancement of government
assistance of the individuals however without general health we can’t accomplish
it. It implies without general health government assistance of individuals is
unthinkable. In India the Directive Principle of State Policy under Article 47 thinks
of it as the essential obligation of the state to improve general health, making sure
about equity, human state of works, expansion of disorder, mature age,
disablement and maternity benefits and furthermore thought about. However, the
Supreme Court has carried the right to health under Article 21. The extent of this
arrangement is extremely wide. It endorses the right of life and individual freedom.
The idea of individual freedom fathomed numerous rights, identified with by
implication to life or freedom of an individual. Furthermore, presently an
individual can guarantee his right of health. Consequently, the right to health,
alongside various other common, political and monetary rights, is managed
insurance under the Indian Constitution.
2. CONSTITUTIONALITY OF ARTICLE 21

According to Article 21 of the Constitution – “no person shall be deprived of

his/her life or personal liberty except according to the procedure established by
law. ‘Life’ in Article 21 of the Constitution isn’t just the physical demonstration of
breathing. It doesn’t imply insignificant creature presence or proceeded with
drudgery through life. It has a lot more extensive importance which incorporates
the right to live with human nobility, the right to livelihood, right to health, right to
pollution free air, and so forth. In the State of Punjab v. M.S. Chawla, it has been
held that-the right to life ensured under Article 21 incorporates inside its ambit the
right to health and clinical consideration.

The Supreme Court in Vincent v. Union of India accentuated that a healthy body is
the very establishment of all human activities. Article 47, a Directive Principle of
State Policy in such manner lays pressure on the improvement of general health
and denial of medications harmful to health as one of the essential obligations of
the state. In Consumer Education and Research Center v. Association of India, the
Supreme Court set out that: “Social equity which is a device to guarantee life to be
significant and decent with human nobility requires the State to give to laborer’s
offices and chances to reach at any rate least standard of health, monetary
security, and edified living. The health and quality of laborers, the court stated,
was a significant feature of the right to life. Disavowal thereof bares the laborers
the better aspects of life damaging Art. 21.”

3. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND AND JURISPRUDENCE OF

RIGHT TO HEALTH

Right to health alludes to and means the most achievable degrees of health that
each person is qualified for. Health has been greatly viewed as the essential and
major human right by the global network under worldwide human rights law. As
opposed to the various human rights, the right to health makes a commitment upon
the states to guarantee that the right to health is regarded, ensured, and satisfied,
and is properly qualified for every one of its residents. As indicated by Salmond,
each right has a relating obligation to be satisfied and there can be no right without
an equal component of obligation.

Also, there are both positive and negative enforceable substances with respect to
the right to health; these reach from satisfactory security by the state, giving
equivalent health care offices to every person and forcing the most significant
commitment upon the state to make such ideal conditions which render the
satisfaction of the right to health.

The beginning of the right to health dates back to 1946 when the primary global
association, World Health Organization (WHO) appeared to figure health terms as
human rights. Also, even before the happening to the World Health Organization,
there were a few nations that have been in the period of conceding health as a
central right. The development owes its reality to the modern upheavals
additionally wherein the laborers were treated as items and the businesses paid no
heed to the insanitary states of working zones.

4. THE BASIC REQUIREMENTS TO BE FULFILLED IN

PROVIDING RIGHT TO HEALTH

A more intensive gander at the uncovered content of the Constitution of India will
render to the end that the Right to health has not been legitimately joined as a
major right. Notwithstanding, the composers and the establishing fathers of the
constitution had extremely unrealistic vision and in this manner, had forced the
obligation on state in the idea of Directive Principles of State Policy under Part IV
of the Constitution wherein it is the duty of the state to guarantee social and
financial equity to its residents. In this way, a general surmise is that Part IV of the
Constitution legitimately or in a roundabout way identifies with the open strategy
as far as health.

Article 38 of the Constitution sets out the duty of the state to make sure about
social requests for the advancement of the government assistance of general health.
Article 39 statement (e) relates to the assurance of health of the laborers. Article 41
identifies giving open help by the state in uncommon conditions, for example,
disorder, handicap, mature age and so on. Article 42 ensures the health of the
newborn child and the moms, for example as it were, it relates to maternity
advantage. Article 47 forces an essential obligation of the state in progress of
general health, in making sure about equity, giving accommodating states of work
to the laborers, augmentation of advantages relating to infection, handicap, mature
age and maternity benefits. What’s more, the state is under a commitment to deny
the utilization of alcohol in light of a legitimate concern for the open great. Article
48A states the obligation of the state towards giving of a decent and healthy
contamination free condition.

In any case, these Directive Principles of State Policy hold only convincing worth
and are non-justiciable, for example they are not enforceable in the official
courtroom.

For the very explanation of Direct Principles holding just powerful worth, the state
utilized this as a weapon to get away from its obligation, duty and liabilities in
giving and securing health of the regular open. Consequently, the Hon’ble
Supreme acted as the hero and brought the right under the domain of Article 21 of
the Constitution of India. The extent of Article 21 has, in this manner, been
extended. Article 21 guarantees the right of life and freedom to every person,
residents or non-residents. The idea of individual freedom is intended to
incorporate rights that might possibly be legitimately connected to the life and
freedom of an individual, which presently incorporates the right to health too.

The commencement of the time of dynamic law following acknowledgment of

principal right was late during the suit relating to human rights in Kesavananda
Bharati. What’s more, around a similar time additionally, the standing standards
were loose relating to the advancing of Public Interest Limited, and access to
equity. There further prompted a precarious ascent in the health-related suit.
In this way, there were further improvements including foundation of the shopper
courts and besides, the acknowledgment of health care as principal right. This is on
the grounds that the Supreme Court permitted people to approach straightforwardly
for the insurance of human rights.

Right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution has been generously deciphered to
mean something more than only human presence and incorporates the right to live
with nobility and conventionality. In 1995, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India on
account of Parmanand Katara held that the individuals who are revealed into the
calling of clinical are responsible for general health and have an intrinsic
commitment to ensure the equivalent so the individuals who are honest can be
secured and the blameworthy be rebuffed. In one more instance of Spring Meadow
Hospital, the court held that there is a requirement for sharpening of important law
relating to the substance of the right to health. A demonstration to manage
legitimate restriction of marketed transplantation has additionally energized the
right to health.

Subsequently, the acknowledgement of nobility and basic right to life prompted

perceiving the significance of health. For another situation of Bandhua Mukti
Morcha v. Association of India, the court held that despite the fact that the
Directive Principles of State Policy hold influential worth, yet they ought to be
appropriately actualized by the state; and it was for this situation additionally that
the court had deciphered the poise and health inside the ambit of life and freedom
under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. In Consumer Education and Research
Center v. Association of India, the court had explicitly opined that right to health
was additionally a fundamental factor to have an important existence and for the
right to life under Part III. What’s more, the court likewise expressed that health
incorporates the entrance to clinical consideration for the most noteworthy
fulfillment of expectations for everyday comforts.

In the Ram Lubhaya case, while looking at the spinning around the issue of right to
health under Article 21, 41 and 47 of the Constitution of India, the court saw that
the right of one associate with the obligation of another. Consequently, the right
endowed under Article 21 forces an equal obligation on the state which is
additionally strengthened as under Article 47. Despite the fact that few schools and
emergency clinics are set up by the administration, however, the obligation isn’t
satisfied until they can be in reach of the overall population. It is relevant to take
note of that the Hon’ble Court for this situation respected health to be a
consecrated, holy and important right.

Further, in Paschim Banga Khet Mazdoor Samity case, the extent of Article 21 was
additionally broadened; thus, the court held that it is the duty of the legislature to
give sufficient clinical guidance to each individual and to work in the government
assistance of the overall population. In addition, Article 21 forces commitment on
the express, the state is required to ensure and shield the rights of each individual.

The Hon’ble Supreme for another situation held that health is a central right and
isn’t limited to just nonattendance of ailments or affliction. The clinical and health
offices are kind of impetus for the laborers to work with best efficiency both in
physical and mental terms. Definitively, clinical offices are likewise part of the
government managed savings. In the T. Ramakrishna Rao case, the Hon’ble High
Court gave the perception that ensuring condition is the obligation of the two
residents and the state. Article 21 likewise grasps the security and conservation of
the earth for the explanation that the natural contamination is a moderate demise
and along these lines, it is infringement of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
In the popular instance of Ratlam Municipal Corporation, the court held that it is
the essential obligation of the state under Article 47 of the Constitution to
guarantee the everyday environments of the individuals are healthy and uphold this
obligation against any legislative body or authority who defaults in doing so
independent of the money related assets it has.

5. RIGHT TO HEALTH UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW.

Under international law, there is a right not merely to health care but to the much
broader concept of health. Because rights must be realized inherently within the
social sphere, this formulation immediately suggests that determinants of health
and ill health are not purely biological or “natural” but are also factors of societal
relations.14,15 Thus, a rights perspective is entirely compatible with work in
epidemiology that has established social determinants as fundamental causes of
disease.16–17 The first notion of a right to health under international law is found
in the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights (hereafter called Declaration),
which was unanimously proclaimed by the UN General Assembly as a common
standard for all humanity.18 The Declaration sets forth the right to a “standard of
living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and his family,
including . . . medical care and . . . the right to security in the event of . . . sickness,
disability . . . or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.” The
Declaration does not define the components of a right to health; however, they both
include and transcend medical care. The Cold War polarized countries‟ positions
on human rights. In 1966, instead of the indissoluble whole reflected in the
Declaration, twin covenants on civil and political rights and economic, social, and
cultural rights were promulgated.19 The right to health was included in the
International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR)

6. THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ON THE RIGHT TO

HEALTH CARE:

The Supreme Court, in Paschim Banga Khet mazdoor Samity and ors v. The State
of West Bengal and Ors, while broadening the extent of Article 21 and the
administration’s obligation to give clinical guidance to each individual in the
nation, held that in a government assistance express, the essential obligation of the
administration is to make sure about the government assistance of the individuals.
Giving satisfactory clinical offices to the individuals is a commitment embraced by
the administration in a government assistance state. The administration releases
this commitment by giving clinical consideration to the people trying to profit from
those offices. Article 21 forces a commitment on the state to defend the right to life
of each individual. The protection of human life is hence of central significance.
The administration emergency clinics run by the state are compelled by a solemn
obligation to expand clinical help for saving human life. Disappointment with
respect to an administration emergency clinic to give ideal medical treatment to an
individual needing such treatment, brings about infringement of his right to life
ensured under Article 21. The Court made certain extra bearing in regard of
genuine clinical cases:

1. Sufficient offices are given at the general health habitats where the patient
can be given essential treatment and his condition balanced out.

2. Medical at the locale and sub divisional level ought to be redesigned with
the goal that genuine cases be treated there.

3. Offices for given authority treatment ought to be expanded and having

respect to the developing needs, it must be made accessible at the area
and sub divisional level emergency clinics.

4. To guarantee accessibility of bed in any crisis at State level medical

clinics, there ought to be a concentrated correspondence framework with
the goal that the patient can be sent promptly to the emergency clinic
where bed is accessible regarding the treatment, which is required.

5. A legitimate game plan of rescue vehicles ought to be made for transport

of a patient from the general health place to the State emergency clinic.

6. Emergency vehicles ought to be sufficiently given vital types of gear and

clinical faculty.
7. HOW FAR INDIA HAS BEEN SUCCESSFUL IN
IMPLEMENTING THE RIGHT TO HEALTH:
In CESC Ltd. versus Subash Chandra Bose, the Supreme Court depended on
international instruments and reasoned that the right to health is a major right. It
went further and saw that health isn’t just nonattendance of ailment: “The term
health offers in excess of a nonappearance of disorder. Clinical consideration and
health offices secure against ailment as well as guarantee stable labor for monetary
turn of events. Offices of health and clinical consideration create commitment and
devotion to put forth a strong effort, truly just as intellectually, in profitability. It
empowers the specialist to appreciate his reward for all the hard work, to keep him
genuinely fit and intellectually alert for driving a fruitful monetary, social and
social life. The clinical offices are, hence, some portion of government managed
savings and like plated edged security, it would yield prompt return in the
expanded creation or at any rate lessen truancy on grounds of ailment, and so on.
However, there is not adequate result from the government from this area.
8. INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS PERTAINING TO RIGHT TO
HEALTH;

The international association is progressing in the direction of the most noteworthy

achievement of right to health is the World Health Organization. Inside this, there
is a World Health Organization Indicatory Metadata Registry (IMR) that goes
about as a focal wellspring of meta-information and sets out specific indicators for
the most elevated achievement of guidelines guaranteeing right to health. These
norms are trailed by the World Health Organization just as different associations
too.

Presently, the general inquiry which emerges is with respect to what these
indicators incorporate. The indicators are comprehensive of the considerable
number of definitions, the strategies for estimation, information sources and certain
other data that give a superior comprehension of the interests. Upwards of 100
indicators have been organized by the worldwide network that gives fresh data on
the current health circumstance, patterns, and counters at the worldwide and
national level. The indicators are significantly grouped into four heads: Health
status, Risk factors, Service inclusion, and Health frameworks. Given hereunder, is
the rundown of 100 Core Health Indicators given by the World Health
Organization in 2015.

Health has been viewed as a major human right by the World Health Organization
(hereinafter alluded to as WHO). The part countries have, consensually, thought
about that the delight in most noteworthy and most feasible standard of health is
the essential and basic right of each person, independent of religion, race, rank,
sex, doctrine, and political conviction, social or monetary condition. Which means
subsequently, health is the basic right surprisingly and everybody must approach
the necessary administrations as and when the need emerges. Good health relates
to spotless and safe drinking water, sanitation, satisfactory lodging, training and
sympathetic working conditions, nutritious nourishments and so on. Health has in a
single manner been connected to the right to protection wherein everybody is
qualified for their regard and respect. Hence, every individual is qualified to
control his/her own body and health which additionally incorporates different
components.

In India, the legal executive has assumed a significant job in perceiving the right to
health as a piece of Article 21 of Chapter III which manages the crucial rights
ensured under the Constitution of India. The state has been coordinated to give the
most noteworthy achievable health gauges to its residents towards the satisfaction
of international principles.

There are a couple as well as adequate cases wherein the legal executive had
effectively settled on the cases relating to the right to health and guaranteeing that
the state satisfies its obligation in guaranteeing that the right so depended on is
properly guaranteed to its open. Over and over, the Supreme Court just as the High
Courts have used their capacity under Article 32 and 226 individually by perusing
right to health in Article 21 of the Constitution. Even though such powers might be
in the idea of legal overreach, such choices are most invited. The nearness of
Directive Principles of state Policy further reinforces the need and the obligation
on the state to do as such.

Fundamental Rights: Article 21 of the Constitution of India guarantees a

fundamental right to life & personal liberty. The right to health is inherent to a life
with dignity. DPSP: Articles 38, 39, 42, 43, & 47 put the obligation on the state to
ensure the effective realization of the right to health.

8.1 RIGHT TO HEALTH IN OTHER COUNTRIES.

In the international perspective, Right to Health is a very basic fundamental right

according to WHO. Right to health for people means that everyone should have
access to health services whenever needed despite the financial crisis. The right to
health is not only about getting timely health care. According to WHO guidelines,
RTH also includes safe and potable water, adequate sanitation, healthy
occupational and environmental conditions, access to health-related information
etc.

Every individual has the right to privacy and to be treated with dignity and respect.
Based on this right to privacy no person shall be subjected to medical examinations
without consent. These are the basic reasons behind the World Health Organization
to promote people centered care as a manifestation of human rights.
Discrimination in health care will totally be unfair and will act as a major barrier to
development as a community. So, RTH is acknowledged and is relevant in every
state of the world. Every country has ratified at least one international treaty that
recognizes the right to health. There is a separate committee to check on how RTH
is being implemented and practiced in every county.

China:
In China, the government have been providing health care services for people after
Chinese communist revolution in 1949. But during 1990, there was a high point of
privatization of healthcare services which led to low life expectancy rate in the
country. Then, the government took various measures, introduced various policies
to provide healthcare to the people. In 2008 the government declared a reformation
plan on playing the dominant role in providing public health and basic medical
services. In the next decade, various other schemes were introduced and in the year
2017 almost 97 percentage of the Chinese population were covered under three
categories of public health insurance.

 Urban Employee Basic Medical Insurance

 Urban Resident Basic Medical Insurance
 New Corporation Medical Services

People falling under the category can claim insurance for every medical expense
even if it is trivial. But even after 2017 the right to health was not actually
legalized in the country. During pandemic, in 2020 March the Chinese government
legalized basic medical and healthcare. The law stated that health must be
prioritized and right to health is a fundamental duty of Chinese population.

UnitedKingdom:
United Kingdom is a developed country but the right to health is not a recognized
protection under law. However, in this country human rights are legalized and
obliges all public authorities including National Health Services. National Health
Services provide public health care to permanent residents of a country. The
system was originally designed to provide free healthcare at the point of need and
shall be paid in the form of a general taxation method. But a few changes were
made like the general taxation method doesn't include prescribed medicines and
dentistry. Since human rights is legalized in this country patients get health care
benefits like

 The elderly and vulnerable patients should not be mistreated.

 It is the duty of the hospitals to protect patients at risk and prioritize them.
 Parents’ consent to treat a child was important

France:
France has a system of healthcare largely financed by the government in the form
of National health insurance. Even though not all medical expenses can be claimed
under this insurance policy, France still manages to be consistently ranked as one
of the best in providing healthcare services to the public. The quality of health care
in France is par while compared to ither western countries.

Japan:
Japan is one of the most developed countries in the world and it is mandatory for
all the residents in this country to have health insurance coverage. People without
insurance from their company or from employers can take part in the National
health insurance program administrated by local government. In such a way,
patients have the liberty to choose their doctors and facilities while the government
will cover for these people.

USA, MEXICO, SOUTH KOREA, TURKEY:

In these countries Right to Health care can't be enjoyed. The country doesn't really
have health care but only a health insurance system. The right to health has been
long recognized internationally but there was never a proper system in these
countries. It is not even considered as a basic human right in these countries even
though these countries campaign for human rights throughout the world. Even
though they have proper medical and health facilities, they are not funded by the
government.

9.WHY IN NEWS? WHAT ARE THE KEY FEATURES OF THE

BILL?

Recently, the Rajasthan Government has passed the Right to Health Bill, which
gives every resident of the state the right to avail free services at all public health
facilities.

Key Features.

1. Free healthcare services, including consultation, drugs, diagnostics,

emergency transport, procedure, and emergency care, will be provided at
all public health institutions and select private facilities subject to
conditions specified in the rules.
 2. The Bill makes it mandatory for the hospitals to provide treatment in
emergency cases without waiting for medico-legal formalities and give
medicines and transport facilities without charging money.
3. The implementation of the law is expected to do away with out-of-pocket
expenditure and bring transparency and accountability within the health
care system.

The right to health is an essential component of human dignity, and it is the

responsibility of governments to ensure that this right is protected and promoted
for all individuals, regardless of their gender, race, ethnicity, religion, or
socioeconomic status.

Judicial Pronouncements: Supreme Court in Paschim Banga Khet Mazdoor

Samity case (1996) held that in a welfare state, the primary duty of the
government is to secure the welfare of the people and moreover it is the
obligation of the government to provide adequate medical facilities for its
people.

Also, in its landmark judgment in Parmanand Katara Vs Union of India

(1989), Supreme Court had ruled that every doctor whether at a government
hospital or otherwise has the professional obligation to extend his services with
due expertise for protecting life.
10. SIGNIFICANCE:

1. Right Based Healthcare Services: The people are entitled to the right
to health, and it creates a compulsion for the government to take steps
toward this.

2. Wide Access to Health Services: Enables everyone to access the services

and ensures that the quality of those services is good enough to
improve the health of the people who receive them.
 3. Reduce Out of Pocket Expenditure: Protects people from the financial
consequences of paying for health services out of their own pockets and
reduces the risk of people getting pushed into poverty.

11. CHALLENGES RELATED TO RIGHT TO HEALTH IN

INDIA?

Inadequate Healthcare Infrastructure:

Despite recent improvements, India's healthcare infrastructure remains
inadequate, particularly in rural areas.

India has 1.4 beds per 1,000 people, 1 doctor per 1,445 people, and 1.7 nurses
per 1,000 people. Over 75% of the healthcare infrastructure is concentrated in
metro cities, where only 27% of the total population resides—the rest 73% of
the Indian population lack even basic medical facilities.

High Disease Burden:

India has a high burden of communicable and non-communicable diseases,

including tuberculosis, HIV/AIDS, malaria, and diabetes.

Addressing these diseases requires significant investment in healthcare

infrastructure and resources.

According to a report by Frontiers in Public Health, more than 33% of the

individuals are still suffering from infectious diseases out of the total ailing
population in India.

The per capita out-of-pocket (OOP) expenditure on infectious diseases is INR

7.28 and INR 29.38 in inpatient and outpatient care, respectively.

Gender Disparities:

Women in India face significant health disparities, including limited access to

healthcare, higher rates of maternal mortality, and gender-based violence.
According to the World Economic Forum 2021, India consistently ranks
among the five worst countries in the world for the health and survival of
females.

Women from poor households account for over 2,25,000 lesser hospital visits
than men between 2017 and 2019 for nephrology, cardiology, and oncology
services alone,

Limited Health Financing:

India's health financing system is limited, with low levels of public spending on
healthcare. This limits the government's ability to invest in healthcare
infrastructure and resources, and it can lead to inadequate healthcare services for
individuals.

Government of India spent 2.1% of GDP on healthcare in FY23. This is

much lower than the average health spending share of the GDP — at around
5.2% — of the Lower- and Middle-Income Countries (LMIC).

WAY FORWARD

India needs to significantly increase its investment in healthcare

infrastructure and resources, including medical facilities, equipment, and
healthcare professionals. This can be achieved through increased public spending
on healthcare and increased private sector investment.
To improve access to healthcare, India needs to address the barriers that
prevent individuals from accessing healthcare services, including financial
constraints, transportation, and discrimination. This can be achieved through
targeted policies and programs, such as health insurance schemes and mobile
healthcare units.

There is a need to create a designated and autonomous agency to perform the

functions of disease surveillance, information gathering on the health impact of
policies of key non-health departments, maintenance of national health statistics,
enforcement of public health regulations, and dissemination of information to the
public. The outbreak of COVID-19 has posed a series of intricate policy
challenges to legislators, the government and public health professionals.

According to the World Health Organization (WHO), health is a state of complete

physical, mental and social well being and not merely the absence of disease.
The WHO goes on to clarify that it is the state’s legal obligation to ensure uniform
access to “timely, acceptable, and affordable health care of appropriate quality as
well as to provide for the underlying determinants of health, such as safe and
potable water, sanitation, food, housing, health-related information and education,
and gender equality” to all its people. In India, this right, which is a natural
corollary to promoting public health, is protected under the Constitution of India in
multiple ways.

In addition to the DPSP, some other health-related provisions can be found in the
11th and 12th Schedules, as subjects within the jurisdictions of Panchayats and
Municipalities, respectively. These include the duty to provide clean drinking
water, adequate healthcare and sanitation (including hospitals, primary health care
centers and dispensaries), promotion of family welfare, development of women
and children, promotion of social welfare, etc.

The Constitution of India does not expressly recognize Right to Health as a

fundamental right under Part III of the Constitution (Fundamental Rights).
However, through judicial interpretation, this has been read into the fundamental
right to life & personal liberty (Article 21) and is now considered an inseparable
part of the Right to Life. Article 23 of the Constitution of India also indirectly
contributes to protecting the Right to Health as it prohibits human trafficking and
child labour.

10. ROLE OF INDIAN SUPREME COURT IN PROTECTING THE

HEALTH
The role of Indian Supreme Court in protecting the health of the public at large is
noteworthy. The Supreme Court has repeatedly observed that the expression “life”
in Article 21 means a life with human dignity and not mere survival or animal
existence (Francis Coralie Mullin vs The Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi
AIR 1981 746). Right to life has a very broad scope which includes right to
livelihood, better standard of life, hygienic conditions in the workplace & right to
leisure. Right to Health is, therefore, an inherent and inescapable part of a dignified
life. Article 21 should also be read in tandem with the directive principles of state
policy, cited above, to truly understand the nature of the obligations of the state in
this respect.

In the case of Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India AIR 1984 SC 812, the
Supreme Court held that although the DPSP are not binding obligations but hold
only persuasive value, yet they should be duly implemented by the State. Further,
the Court held that dignity and health fall within the ambit of life and liberty under
Article 21.

In the case of Paschim Banga Khet Mazoor Samity v. State of West Bengal
(1996) 4 SCC 37, the scope of Article 21 was further widened, as the court held
that it is the responsibility of the Government to provide adequate medical aid to
every person and to strive for the welfare of the public at large.

Further, the Supreme Court in the case of Parmanand Katara v Union of India
AIR 1989 S.C. 2039, held that every doctor at Government hospital or otherwise
has the professional obligation to extend his services with due expertise for
protecting life of a patient.
In the subsequent case of Consumer Education and Research Centre V. Union
of India AIR 1995 SC 922, held that right to health and medical aid to protect the
health and vigor of a worker, both while in service and post-retirement, is a
fundamental right under Article 21.

Further, According to Article 19 (1) (g) of the Indian Constitution, the fundamental
right of all citizens to practice any profession, or carry on any occupation, trade or
business is subject to restrictions imposed in the interest of the general public
under Article 19(6). The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Burrabazar Fire
Works Dealers Association and Others v. Commissioner of Police, Calcutta
AIR 1998 Cal. 121, held that Article 19 (1) (g) does not guarantee any freedom
which is at the cost of the community’s safety, health and peace.

11. CONCLUSION
Right to Health is a part and parcel of Right to Life and therefore right to health is
a fundamental right guaranteed to every citizen of India under Article 21 of the
Constitution of India. We owe the recognition of this right to the fact that the
Supreme Court of India, through a series of judicial precedents, logically extended
its interpretation of the right to life to include right to health.

Therefore, it is the duty of the State to care for the health of the public at large and
the Central Government and various State governments have, rightfully and
proactively, taken various measures to contain the entry and spread of the COVID-
19 pandemic.

The term Right to health is nowhere mentioned in the constitution yet the Supreme
Court has interpreted it as a fundamental right under Right to life enshrined in
Article 21. It is a significant view of the Supreme Court that first it interpreted
Right to Health under part IV. i.e., Directive Till today no effective steps have been
taken to implement the constitutional obligation upon the state to secure the health
and strength of people. It has rightly been said that nutrition, health & education
are the three inputs accepted as significant for the development of human
resources. For achieving the Constitutional obligation and objectives of Health care
for all there is a need on the part of the government to mobilize nongovernmental
organization and the general public towards their participation for monitoring and
implementation of health care facilities.