Right to health as enshrined in Part-III and Part-IV of the Constitution
Everyone has a right to standard of living adequate for the health and wellbeing of himself and her family" In the light of the other statement discuss right to health as enshrined in Part-III and Part-IV of the Constitution.
or
"The concept of health is multidimensional and 'right to health is inseparable from 'right to life' and 'right to medical facilities is a part and parcel of right to life "- Justify your answer in the light of Part-III and Part-IV of the Constitution of India with suitable judicial pronouncements. life"
or
The Constitution of India defines the right to health as "the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of health" - Discuss in the light of Part III and Part IV of the Indian Constitution with the help of decided cases.
or
Liability of Health Care Provisions under Constitutional Law
.webp)
Introduction
The right to health is integral to a dignified existence and is intertwined with the right to life itself. Though the Indian Constitution does not explicitly mention the "right to health" as a fundamental right, it has been read into other fundamental rights, especially under Article 21 (Right to Life). The recognition of the right to health as a core element of human dignity has evolved through judicial pronouncements and constitutional interpretation. This right is reflected in Part III (Fundamental Rights) and Part IV (Directive Principles of State Policy) of the Constitution of India, providing both enforceable rights and guiding principles for the government to ensure health and well-being.
Right to Health under Part III: Fundamental Rights
While the Indian Constitution does not specifically include health as a fundamental right, it is interpreted as an intrinsic part of the Right to Life under Article 21. Over time, the judiciary has expanded the scope of Article 21 to include the right to live with dignity, which necessitates access to healthcare.
Article 21: Right to Life and Personal Liberty
The Right to Life guaranteed by Article 21 has been interpreted broadly by the Indian judiciary to encompass various rights essential for leading a dignified life, including the right to health. This evolution is evident through several landmark judgments, where the courts have recognized the state's responsibility to provide adequate health services.
Pashchim Banga Khet Mazdoor Samity v. State of West Bengal (1996):
The Supreme Court held that the government's failure to provide timely medical treatment to a person in need violated the individual's right to life under Article 21. The Court emphasized that the state is under a constitutional obligation to provide adequate medical facilities for its citizens.
Consumer Education and Research Centre v. Union of India (1995):
The Supreme Court recognized that the right to health and medical care is a fundamental right under Article 21, particularly in relation to the health and safety of workers. The judgment emphasized that ensuring a healthy working environment is part of the state’s duty to protect life and health.
State of Punjab v. Mohinder Singh Chawla (1997):
The Supreme Court held that the right to health is an integral part of the right to life and that it is the duty of the state to provide adequate medical facilities.
Article 19: Freedom to Practice Any Profession
Article 14: Right to Equality
1. Parmanand Katara v. Union of India (1989):
The Supreme Court held that Article 21 makes it the duty of the state to preserve life. The Court ruled that no hospital, whether public or private, can refuse to treat a person in an emergency, irrespective of their financial or social standing.
Right to Health under Part IV: Directive Principles of State Policy
While Part III of the Constitution guarantees enforceable rights, Part IV (Directive Principles of State Policy) lays down guiding principles for the state to follow in governance. Although these provisions are non-justiciable, they provide a framework for the state to ensure health and welfare. Several provisions in Part IV are closely linked to the right to health.
Article 38: This article mandates the state to secure a social order for the promotion of welfare and justice—social, economic, and political—for all individuals. It emphasizes that without public health, achieving overall welfare is impossible.
Article 39(e) and (f):
These clauses emphasize that the state shall direct its policy toward ensuring that "the health and strength of workers" and "children are not abused" and that citizens are not forced by economic necessity to enter vocations unsuited to their health.
Article 41: Right to Public Assistance
This Article directs the state to provide public assistance in cases of unemployment, old age, sickness, and disablement. It recognizes the importance of social security and healthcare for ensuring the well-being of citizens.
Article 42: Provision for Just and Humane Conditions of Work and Maternity Relief
Article 42 mandates that the state must make provisions for securing humane conditions of work and maternity relief. This reflects the state’s obligation to safeguard the health of workers, particularly women, by ensuring safe working conditions and access to maternity care.
Article 47: Duty of the State to Raise the Level of Nutrition and Standard of Living
Article 47 explicitly mentions that it is the duty of the state to improve public health and the standard of living. It directs the state to prioritize raising the level of nutrition, public health, and sanitation. This provision acts as a cornerstone for various public health programs and policies implemented by the government.
State of Punjab v. Mohinder Singh Chawla (1997): In this case, the Supreme Court reiterated that the right to health is integral to the right to life under Article 21 and held that the state is responsible for ensuring the health and well-being of its citizens.
Article 48A: Protection and Improvement of Environment
Though indirectly related, Article 48A focuses on the protection of the environment, which is intrinsically connected to the right to health. Clean air, water, and a healthy environment are essential for the well-being of individuals and communities.
Implications for Health Policy
The DPSP provides a framework for formulating health policies aimed at improving public health outcomes:
1. Public Health Initiatives: The principles encourage governments to implement comprehensive public health initiatives that address nutrition, sanitation, maternal health, and access to healthcare services.
2. Legislative Frameworks: The DPSP serves as a guiding force for enacting laws related to healthcare delivery, worker protection, and public assistance programs.
3. Social Justice: The emphasis on social justice within the DPSP necessitates policies that prioritize marginalized populations' access to healthcare services.
4. Collaboration with Other Sectors: The principles encourage collaboration across sectors—such as education, housing, and employment—to address social determinants affecting health outcomes.
Relevant Case Laws
Several landmark judgments have reinforced the importance of DPSP in relation to health:
1. Paschim Banga Khet Mazdoor Samity v. State of West Bengal (1996): The Supreme Court ruled that it is the state's duty to provide adequate medical facilities under Article 21 (Right to Life). The court emphasized that failure to provide timely medical care constitutes a violation of this right.
2. Parmanand Katara v. Union of India (1989): In this case, the Supreme Court held that every individual has a right to emergency medical treatment regardless of their socio-economic status. The ruling reinforced that access to healthcare is essential for upholding human dignity.
3. Vincent Parikurlangara v. Union of India (1987): The court recognized that maintaining public health is integral to living with dignity under Article 21, which includes access to healthcare services.
4. Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India (1984): This landmark judgment highlighted that state action should not deprive individuals of their basic needs, including healthcare services related to mental well-being.
5. Indian Medical Association v. Union of India (2011): The Supreme Court emphasized ethical standards in medical practice while highlighting that doctors must adhere strictly to established guidelines in providing care.
Judicial Activism and Expansion of the Right to Health
Indian courts have played a pivotal role in interpreting and expanding the right to health by invoking both Part III and Part IV of the Constitution. Several key judicial pronouncements have shaped the recognition of health as a fundamental right.
Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997):
The Supreme Court's reliance on international conventions, such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), has further reinforced the concept of the right to health. Article 25 of the UDHR recognizes the right to an adequate standard of living, including health and well-being.
Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India (1984):
In this case, the Supreme Court recognized the right to health as a part of the right to life for bonded laborers. It directed the state to provide healthcare, shelter, and basic facilities to ensure the workers' dignified living conditions.
Challenges and Practical Implementation
Despite the constitutional recognition and judicial endorsement of the right to health, there are several challenges in the practical implementation of this right.
Inadequate Healthcare Infrastructure:
One of the biggest hurdles is the inadequacy of healthcare infrastructure, especially in rural areas. Poor access to medical facilities, lack of trained personnel, and shortage of medicines undermine the enforcement of the right to health.
Economic Disparities and Inequities:
Healthcare in India is marked by disparities, where wealthier sections of society have access to better healthcare services, while the economically weaker sections often struggle to receive even basic medical care. The failure to ensure equitable access to healthcare violates the principles of equality under Article 14 and the directive policies in Part IV.
Public Health Crises:
Public health crises like the COVID-19 pandemic have exposed the fragility of the healthcare system. The pandemic underscored the urgent need for a robust public health infrastructure and equitable healthcare access, which is vital for the realization of the right to health.
Healthcare Privatization:
The increasing privatization of healthcare services has made quality healthcare unaffordable for many, especially the economically weaker sections of society. This has raised concerns regarding the state's duty under Article 21 to ensure access to healthcare for all citizens.
Conclusion
The right to health is a crucial aspect of human dignity and well-being, and while it is not explicitly mentioned as a fundamental right in the Constitution, it has been interpreted as an essential part of the Right to Life under Article 21. The Indian judiciary has played a key role in expanding the scope of the right to health, emphasizing the state's duty to provide adequate healthcare services and uphold the well-being of its citizens.
While the Directive Principles in Part IV provide a framework for achieving health and well-being, the need for stronger legislative measures, equitable healthcare policies, and improved infrastructure is pressing. The right to health, as enshrined in the Constitution and recognized by the courts, calls for effective and inclusive health policies that can ensure the well-being of all citizens, particularly the vulnerable sections of society.
Comments
Post a Comment