Right to Health and Medical Assistance
The Right to Life, of course, cannot be upheld if every person is not given access to proper health and medical assistance. It is the most primary prerequisite to living a full life.
However, sometimes doctors and medical institutions hesitate to assist the ailing persons due to fear of long formalities and complications, especially in medico-legal cases.
- Pt. Parmanand Katara v. Union of India (1989)
Facts:
In this case, a scooterist faced an accident upon crashing with a car but upon being brought to a hospital, he was refused treatment and directed to another hospital 20 km away due to the non-occurrence of legal and police formalities. A writ petition was filed in public interest to make it an obligation for doctors to provide medical assistance immediately and not have to wait for completion of formalities.
Judgement:
It was recognised that Article 21 renders paramount importance to the preservation of human life. Thus, it is the obligation of all medical professionals to give immediate health assistance to all patients, without being put under any legal impediment. It was decided that no medical professional shall be harassed for any investigation and he or she would not be asked to testify in court unless necessary and absolutely relevant.
Right to sleep
All of us love sleeping, right? But many are not aware that the Right to Sleep is a distinct part of one’s Fundamental Rights, which protects against any actions of the State leading to the unlawful deprivation of a person’s sleep.
- Re-Ramlila Maidan Incident v. Home Secretary and Ors. (2012)
Facts:
In this case, a Yoga training camp was to be held in Ramlila Maidan during June, 2011 but on 4th June it turned into a hunger strike against black money and corruption led by Baba Ramdev. The protests took place all day and at 12:30 at night, when all the protestors were sleeping, a large number of CRPF, Delhi Police force and Rapid Action Force personnel reached the venue to bring the sadhu out. A scuffle ensued between the personnel and the sadhu’s supporters which ended in throwing teargas shells on the people.
Judgement
The court acknowledged that sleep is an essential part of a healthy life and a necessity for the maintenance of individual peace. Thus, it held that every person is entitled to sleep as comfortably and freely as he breathes. If any person’s sleep is disturbed without any reasonable justification, it amounts to torture and is a violation of his human rights. Therefore, making the sleeping persons flee and causing mayhem at the location was held as unlawful, since there was no illegal activity taking place there
- Jolly George Varghese and Anr. v. Bank of Cochin (1980)
Facts:
In this case, a court warrant was made for the arrest and detention of two judgement-debtors as they had not paid the money due to the Bank. Their property was also encroached upon for the purpose of selling it and obtaining the money. All this was done without ascertaining that the judgement-debtors had the means to pay but had intentionally evaded it, i.e., had committed an act of bad-faith. Hence, an appeal was filed by the two.
Judgement:
The court declared that it was necessary to ascertain whether an act of bad faith had been committed, and only then the judgement-debtors should be arrested and detained.
Right to die
The Right to Life confers upon the person the right to live a full life and dictates that the State cannot interfere in this right except through procedure established by law. But what if a person chooses to end his own life? Can he interfere in his own Right to Life?
Section 309 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 criminalises attempt to suicide, with the convicted person facing up to two years of imprisonment, or a fine, or both.
Section 306, meanwhile, criminalises the abetment to suicide i.e., the assistance given by a person in the process of the commitment of suicide by another.
- P. Rathinam v. Union of India (1994)- Right to Die
Facts:
In this case, two petitions were filed challenging Section 309 of the IPC on the grounds that it stood in violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.
Judgement:
Keeping Article 21 as well as the principles of natural justice in mind, the two-judge bench ruled that Right to Life also included the right to not live a forced life. Therefore, Section 309 of the Indian Penal Code was declared void.
However, the court then changed its position in the subsequent case of Smt. Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab (1996).
- Smt. Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab (1996)
Facts:
In this case, Gian Kaur and her husband Harbans Singh were convicted under Section 306 of the IPC due to abetment to the suicide of Kulwant Kaur. Subsequently, the constitutional validity of Sections 306 and 309 was challenged.
Judgement:
Here, the judgement given in the previously-mentioned case was overruled and it was held that Section 309 of the IPC was not unconstitutional and that Section 306, criminalising abetment to suicide, was Constitutional. The court concluded that suicide being an unnatural termination of life, it was against the concept of Right to Life.
In Smt. Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab, the court observed that euthanasia could be made lawful only by legislation. The reasoning behind this was to prevent unscrupulous actions by ill-intentioned people.
The landmark case in this matter, however, was Common Cause (A Regd. Society) v. Union of India (2018), which made passive euthanasia lawful.
Right to Education: A Fundamental Right under Article 21A
Life without education remains to be a mere animal existence, as it is education that broadens the horizons of a person’s mind, making him capable of not only earning a livelihood but also of achieving happiness and respect and making a mark for himself in the world.
The Right to Education in India was added under Article 21A of the Indian Constitution by the Constitution (Eighty-Sixth) Amendment Act, 2002. This Article provides free and compulsory education to all children in the age group of six to fourteen years (6–14) as a Fundamental Right.
Two cases had an important bearing on the establishment of the Right to Education.
- Miss Mohini Jain v. State of Karnataka and Ors. (1992)
Facts:
In this case, student of a Government Medical College in Karnataka was refused admission as she could not afford to pay the Rs. 60,000 capitation fee which was charged from the students not belonging to Karnataka. She filed a petition against this action.
Judgement:
The High Court declared that it was illegal to charge capitation fee from students under any circumstances. Moreover, it acknowledged that education was what ensured a life of dignity and happiness to a person and not transforming the right to education mentioned under Article 41 of Part IV of the Constitution into a Fundamental Right would defeat its purpose and also keep all existing Fundamental Rights beyond the reach of the illiterate. Thus, it declared that Right to Education is a part of the Fundamental Rights.
- Unni Krishnan, J.P. and Ors. Etc. v. State of A.P. and Ors.: Article 21(a)
Facts:
The petition in this case was filed by certain educational institutions in Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Maharashtra and Tamil Nadu challenging the decision made by the court in the above case of Mohini Jain v. the State of Karnataka. They claimed that a person had the right to open an educational institution with a profit motive and if that institution was self-financed, then the quantum of fees charged by it would be the discretion of the institution and not the State.
Judgement:
It was held that every Indian citizen has a Fundamental Right to Education. No person can be deprived of his or her education by the State. This right includes free education until the person attains 14 years of age and thereafter, it will depend on his or her personal economic capacity as well as that of the State.
It is clear that the recognition of Right to Education as a Fundamental Right was mainly brought about by the above-mentioned cases, which ultimately led to the Eighty-Sixth Amendment.