The Indian constitution does not explicitly state health rights but courts
interpret it to form an important fundamental right based on constitutional
principles. The massive economic differences across India require universal
health care access to be considered both a policy matter and a principle of
human dignity and equality.
Numerous healthcare schemes have failed to resolve
the country-wide enforcement gap for right to health protections because India
lacks specific health legislation. The article examines India's constitutional
guarantees for health rights together with judicial contributions to the
evolution process while emphasizing the urgent requirement of implementing
comprehensive health legislation throughout the nation.
Constitutional Mandates: A Silent Promise
The Indian Constitution includes several provisions which establish the basis for recognizing the right to health despite omitting this right under Part III Fundamental Rights.
Article 21 serves as the main legal basis for establishing health rights protection by determining personal liberty as a fundamental right for every citizen. Article 21 has received continuous Supreme Court expansion which established that living with human dignity requires basic healthcare access to ensure these rights.[1]
The non-justiciable Directive Principles of State Policy in Part IV demonstrate that the creators of the constitution wanted health to be a key priority.[2]
The release ensures the state will carry out its responsibilities by providing sufficient medical care while delivering proper nutrition and maintaining living conditions that support general wellness for citizens (Articles 38, 39(e), 41, 42 and 47).[3] By Article 47 the state must enhance both nutrition standards and public health through ethical obligations for governments to implement policies.
Judicial Interpretation: Expanding the Horizon of Article 21
Indian courts took a leading role to embed the right to health within fundamental rights through interpreting existing constitutional articles. Specific legal protections lacking so the courts have relied on judicial activism to rectify these kinds of situations.
The Consumer Education and Research Centre v. Union of India (1995)[4] stands as one of the first significant cases regarding these particular matters.
The Supreme Court established the fundamental character of health and medical services under Article 21 during its ruling in Union of India (1995). According to the Court, health and strength of workers represent a fundamental element within the right to life.
In Paschim Banga Khet Mazdoor Samity v. The State of West Bengal (1996)[5], it was determined that denying timely hospital treatment to individuals in need represents an infraction against Article 21. Under this legal decision, states became responsible to deliver sufficient medical care which citizens deserve.
Similarly, in Mohinder Singh Chawla v. State of Punjab (1997)[6], the court declared health a natural right under Article 21, thus confirming that basic healthcare is a basic human need. These court decisions demonstrate an unmistakable development of judicial thinking because judges now acknowledge health as part of life while concomitantly requiring state responsibility for health delivery. Judicial directions are insufficient to establish a lawful and comprehensive entitlement from this right that exists within Article 21.
Healthcare in Practice: Gaps and Inequities
The official judicial backing stands in contrast to what occurs in reality. Healthcare in India endures numerous challenges from insufficient health facilities together with uneven service distribution and excessive workload throughout its public health network. Healthcare expenses in India represent about 2% of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP), below the worldwide standard.[7]
The availability of healthcare services faces obstacles because of social factors that combine poverty with caste system and gender discrimination along with geographic location differences.[8] People in rural areas suffer from severe doctor and equipment shortages, but the urban population experiences overcrowded and high-cost medical care. The absence of clear legal procedures that hold health service providers responsible creates barriers for citizens who need to recover their rights that were infringed.
The policies introducing Ayushman Bharat along with the National Health Mission have increased accessibility yet their legal authority as binding statutes remains absent.[9] Without a clearly defined health right law, the executive branch and judiciary hold the power to decide on health-related enforcement but demonstrate inconsistent application between different states and situations.
Comparative Perspective: Learning from Global Frameworks
Several international nations have adopted healthcare as a protected right. Within the South African Constitution, healthcare services receive explicit legal protection.[10] According to the Brazilian Constitution, the state must deliver health services as a mandatory task.[11] Through such legal commitments, courts across different jurisdictions specifically enforce government responsibility regarding healthcare delivery.
India has pledged to protect health rights by becoming a member of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR)[12] and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR)[13] since it is obligated to uphold these international human rights. The domestic implementation of these international obligations lacks strength because there are no proper legal systems in place.
The Case for a Comprehensive Health Law
Given the constitutional backing plus judicial orders along with international legal frameworks recognizing the right to health, a specific health legislation becomes an obvious oversight.
A complete health law must cover several essential points including:
Establish binding legal definitions for health rights to make them enforceable in law.
Grievance redressal systems and penalty sanctions must exist to sustain accountability measures.
The national healthcare system needs immediate upgrades by implementing basic standards for all medical services delivered by public and private entities.
Policy implementations should work to eliminate inequalities that exist across gender and caste groups while addressing regional differences.
Implement a rights-based approach which grants citizens the authority to access healthcare as their fundamental right rather than seek charity help.
The law needs to define both the state and central governments' duties while also establishing rules for healthcare facility licensing and providing guidelines for handling emergencies during post-COVID-19 crises.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court of India elevated the right to health from its initial
position as a basic constitutional concept into a fundamental right by
conducting judicial interpretations. A statutory framework must be established
to complete the evolution of the right to health in India although judicial
interpretation has already transformed this ideal into a fundamental right.
A
democratic system which seeks to be both inclusive and just cannot limit health
to policy decisions because health needs to stand as a formal legal right. A
complete health law has a constitutional status as it ensures the dignity of
every citizen and protects their well-being along with their equal rights.
End Notes:
Constitution of India, 1950, Art. 21, Art. 47.
A. Jayaram, "Directive Principles and the Right to Health", (2016) 58(4) Journal of the Indian Law Institute 231.
Constitution of India, 1950, Arts. 38, 39(e), 41, 42, 47.
Consumer Education and Research Centre v. Union of India, (1995) 3 SCC 42.
Paschim Banga Khet Mazdoor Samity v. State of West Bengal, (1996) 4 SCC 37.
State of Punjab v. Mohinder Singh Chawla, (1997) 2 SCC 83.
National Health Profile, "Health Statistics 2022", Central Bureau of Health Intelligence, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India (2022).
WHO, Global Spending on Health: A World in Transition, World Health Organization (2019).
S. Shukla, "Health Justice and the Role of Judiciary in India", (2020) 62(3) Journal of the Indian Law Institute 215.
Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996, Section 27.
Constitution of the Federative Republic of Brazil, 1988, Article 196.
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, G.A. Res. 217A (III), U.N. Doc. A/810 at 71 (1948), Art. 25.
Award-Winning Article Written By: Ms.Vyshnavi Epari
Comments