It takes within its (right to life) fold some of the “finer graces of human civilization, which makes life worth living”…
P. Rathinam v. Union of India
Despite the Supreme Court of India’s emphasis on the dignified treatment of human beings, the COVID 19 has exposed several instances where human lives were treated without dignity,. The most condemned among all the instances is the migrant crisis. At a time when scholarly ink has been spilt to address the issue of migrant management in India, other instances, namely, the denial of admission of patients to hospitals and the undignified burial of corpses.
To set things in context, one needs to recall the challenges common citizens of India faced during the pandemic. In June, a 52-year-old man, who felt shortness of breath, died because he was denied admission by hospital authorities. In another instance, a pregnant woman in Benglauru, experiencing unbearable labour pain, was denied admission into a hospital because she did not have a COVID-19 test certificate. She eventually gave birth in a vehicle, wherein her newborn died soon. In another related incident, a pregnant woman in a Northeast Indian state was denied admission by five hospitals despite having a COVID-19 negative test certificate, and shortly died at the entrance of a hospital.
The Supreme Court and High Courts have reiterated innumerable times that the ‘Right to live with dignity’ is a part of ‘Right to life’ under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The Supreme Court in Francis Coralie v. Union Territory of Delhi held that ‘life’ does merely include animal existence but a life worth living (i.e. with dignity). The Supreme Court cited Justice Field’s decision in Munn v. Illinois which expanded the scope of ‘life to include- “inhibition against its deprivation extends to all those limbs and faculties by which life is enjoyed”. Most importantly, the Supreme Court of India has expanded the scope of ‘life’ to also include basic-necessities for survival such as food, shelter, clothes, nutrition, and health.
The Supreme Court, in State of Punjab & Ors vs Mohinder Singh Chawla reiterated the well-settled principle of law that- health is an integral part of the right to life; and the government has a constitutional obligation to provide health facilities. There, when the government hospitals fail to provide timely health facilities to the patient, it is a violation of the patient’s right to life. In the landmark decision of Paramananda Katara v. Union of India, it was explicitly stated by the Supreme Court that doctors in both government and private hospitals are obligated to provide medical aid to patients without requiring immediate compliance with the procedure and legal formalities when the life of the patient is in danger as preservation of life should be the foremost objective. Despite the emphasis of the judiciary on the Right to Life in the form of dignity and health, blatant violations of Fundamental Rights are being witnessed during COVID-19 pandemic as noted in the above mentioned examples.
In the cases where even expecting mothers have to suffer it is not just the Right to Life of the pregnant woman which is in question but also of the unborn child. The Supreme Court, in a case of termination of pregnancy held that there exists a ‘compelling state interest’ to protect the life of the prospective child. It has recognized the Right to Life of the unborn especially when the unborn is in developed stages of pregnancy. The child must have the right to take birth with dignity and adequate medical facilities at disposal.
A reading of Article 12, 13(2), and 32 of the Constitution of India states that relief under Article 32 can be sought against violation of fundamental rights against the State or State agencies only. However, with the increasing role of private healthcare, the Supreme Court has widened the scope of its writ jurisdiction and stated that writs can be issued against private institutions performing public functions; but the scope is still very limited when it comes to such privately funded hospitals.
The gruesome instances of deaths following the denial of admission present an apt opportunity for the courts to expand their writ jurisdiction over privately funded hospitals as well. It is pertinent to realize that even privately funded hospitals are capable of violating fundamental rights in the course of exercising a public duty.
Shri M. Ananthasayanam Ayyangar, in a constituent assembly debate regarding the scope of Article 32 argued that “the Supreme Court according to me is the Supreme guardian of the citizen’s rights in any democracy. I would even go further and say that it is the soul of democracy”. The Supreme Court is responsible for protecting the fundamental rights of persons and must ensure accountability for their violation.. Article 32(1) which states- “The right to move the Supreme Court by appropriate proceedings for the enforcement of the rights conferred by this Part is guaranteed” must be interpreted literally, and the Supreme Court must lift the veil protecting private institutions from constitutional accountability and duty.
Article 21 of the Constitution of India recognizes the Right to Life and personal liberty for every person. In Francis Coralie v. Union Territory of Delhi, the Supreme Court held that ‘life’ means a dignified life. The Supreme Court in Ashray Adhikar Abhiyan v. Union of India further widened the scope of ‘dignified life’ to ‘dignified death’ vis a vis a decent burial.
A recent video of healthcare workers dragging and throwing dead corpses into a pit for mass burial caused outrage among citizens. The Supreme Court has even taken suo moto cognizance of this issue. Mr. Ashwani Kumar (former Union Law Minster) wrote to the Supreme Court expressing his concern over the appalling practice and stated that lack of cremation facilities is no reason to treat the human bodies without dignity. The Bombay High Court recognized the blatant violation of the Right to Life (or Right to a Dignified Life) and ordered the Mumbai’s municipal body to make necessary arrangements for dignified cremation of COVID 19 casualties, and allow the family members to conduct the last rites as per their respective religion and the guidelines of the government.
While India’s higher judiciary, through its landmark decisions, has played a gradual and an active role in widening the ambit of individual rights, it is high time the executive needs to catch up by enforcing them on the ground. To enforce this, if needed, the courts must actively hold authorities in contempt for failing to enforce their orders and judgments. The COVID-19 is one incident that brought out the already existing flaws in India’s politico-administrative system.
The Author is a 3rd Year Law student at the Ramaiah College of Law, Bangalore, India.