Right to life no doubt includes the right to health, because life without health has a diminished meaning. Article 21 of the Constitution of India guarantees the right to life and along with the same; it also guarantees the right to health. No doubt, the right to health under Article 21 is not an expressed right but can only be implied, but nevertheless, it cannot be diminished. In the Bandhua Mukti Morcha case, the Apex Court has stated that right to life does not mean a right to a mere vegetable existence but a right to a dignified life.
The Constitution under Article 47 provides that: “Duty of the State to raise the level of nutrition and the standard of living and to improve public health- The State shall regard the raising of he level of nutrition and the standard of living of its people and the improvement of public health as among its primary duties and, in particular, the State shall endeavour to bring about prohibition of the consumption, except for medicinal purposes, of intoxicating drinks and of drugs which are injurious to health.” Article 47 is a Directive Principle of State Policy and hence cannot be claimed as a right in a court of law. It gives directions to the State and not a right to the citizens.
In the case of Parmanand Katara v Union of India, the Supreme Court gave directions that every injured citizen brought for treatment should instantaneously be given medical aid to preserve life and thereafter the procedural criminal law should be allowed to operate in order to avoid negligent death and in the event of breach of such direction, apart from any action that may be taken for negligence, appropriate compensation should be admissible.
In Paschim Banga Khet Mazdoor Samiti v State of West Bengal, the Apex Court observed that: The Constitution envisages the establishment of a welfare state at the federal level as well as at 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 health centres which provide medical care to the person seeking to avail those facilities. Article 21 imposes an obligation on the State to safeguard the right to life of every person. Preservation of human life is thus of paramount importance. The Government hospitals run by the State and the medical officers employed therein are duty bound to extend medical assistance for preserving human life. Failure on the part of a Government hospital to provide timely medical treatment to a person in need of such treatment results in violation of his right to life guaranteed under Article 21.
The Law Commission of India in its 201st report on EMERGENCY MEDICAL CARE TO VICTIMS OF
ACCIDENTS AND DURING EMERGENCY MEDICAL CONDITION AND WOMEN UNDER LABOUR along with a model draft provided for the duties of hospitals and doctors to treat accident victims, screen them, keep records and also laid down penalties for non fulfillment.
In Mr X v Hospital Z, the court again upheld the right to health over the right to privacy.
Thus, the right to life includes the right to health and for that it is essential that the State provides proper healthcare facilities, clean drinking water, pollution free environment, emergency medical care at hospitals to all persons.
There is a need to add right to health as an express right under the Chapter on Fundamental Rights. It is the duty of the State to preserve the life of all persons and one of the basic means of doing the same is through providing proper healthcare facilities.
