Legal Services India - Law Articles is a Treasure House of Legal Knowledge and information, the law resources is an ever growing database of authentic legal information.

» Home
Saturday, November 23, 2024

Every Prisoner Entitled To Receive Basic Medical Care; Cannot Discriminate Between Rich & Poor: Delhi HC

Posted in: Criminal Law
Tue, Dec 26, 23, 12:57, 12 Months ago
star star star star star
0 out of 5 with 0 ratings
comments: 0 - hits: 9253
Mr Amandeep Singh Dhall vs Directorate Of Enforcement that every prisoner, regardless of his financial standing, is entitled to basic medical care.

It is most significant to note that the Delhi High Court in a most learned, laudable, landmark and latest judgment titled Mr Amandeep Singh Dhall vs Directorate Of Enforcement in Bail Appln 2093/2023 & connected matter and cited in Neutral Citation No.: 2023:DHC:9341 that was reserved on 19.12.2023 and then finally pronounced on 22.12.2023 has minced just no words absolutely to hold most commendably that every prisoner, regardless of his financial standing, is entitled to basic medical care. Thus it was made clear by the Court that there cannot be discrimination in providing basic medical care to every prisoner between rich and the poor. It must be noted that the Delhi High Court directed the Secretary (Home), Government of NCT of Delhi and Secretary, Health and Family Welfare, Government of NCT of Delhi to ensure that the health care requirements of the prison inmates are met and adequate medical infrastructure in the jail premises is maintained for ensuring that the right of prisoners to appropriate medical care.

At the very outset, this brief, brilliant, bold and balanced judgment authored by the Single Judge Bench comprising of Hon'ble Ms Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma of Delhi High Court sets the ball in motion by first and foremost putting forth succinctly in para 1 that:
The instant applications under Sections 439 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('Cr.P.C.') read with Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 ('PMLA Act') has been filed on behalf of the applicant seeking grant of interim bail in ECIR/HIU-II/14/2022 dated 22.08.2022, registered with ED, Delhi under Section 3 and 4 of PMLA and in RC003/2022/A/0053 dated 17.08.2022, registered at Police Station CBI, Anti-Corruption Branch Lodhi Road, Delhi, for a period of twelve weeks on medical grounds.

As we see, the Bench specifies in para 2 that:
The Grievance of the applicant, in a nutshell, is that the applicant is not being provided proper and appropriate treatment in terms of post-epidural care in the prison premises, and thus, the applicant seeks that he be released on interim bail, in order to get appropriate treatment from Indian Spinal Injuries Centre, Vasant Kunj, Delhi.

To put things in perspective, the Bench envisages in para 11 that:
This Court, after considering the medical history of the applicant and the medical status report filed on record, notes that the medical facility at the prison complex, at this stage, is not able to provide appropriate medical care which is required by the applicant in terms of post-epidural care. The dispensary at Central Jail-07 does not have the required medical equipment required for physiotherapy sessions of the applicant.

This Court also notes that the applicant, due to his medical condition which relates to his spine, cannot be taken to any outside hospital on OPD basis, as the constant jerks and vibrations may further aggravate his medical condition. This Court observes, based on the medical history of the applicant and medical report dated 16.12.2023, that the medical condition of the applicant is such that if the medical treatment as suggested to the applicant is not provided to him, the same may also lead to paralysis of his upper limb.

Do note, the Bench reaffirms the prisoner's right to health and appropriate medical treatment in para 12 noting that:
Every prison inmate, regardless of the fact that such person is an accused or convict, possesses an inherent right to life and humane treatment. This includes the right to receive medical care that addresses his health needs and prevents unnecessary suffering. To neglect the medical well-being of prisoners is to deny them a fundamental right to life.

Be it noted, the Bench notes in para 13 that:
Incarceration does not deprive individuals of their fundamental right to life which includes right to appropriate health care. Prisoners, like all members of society, may face various health issues, both pre-existing and emergent during incarceration. Denying them access to necessary medical care not only deteriorates their health conditions but can lead to preventable suffering and, in extreme cases, loss of life. This neglect not only undermines the principles of justice but also challenges the moral foundation of a society that values the dignity and worth of every human being even if, he is a prisoner.

Most significantly, the Bench minces absolutely no words to hold unquestionably in para 16 that:
It is a common public perception that affluent individuals who find themselves incarcerated receive preferential treatment, including access to luxurious hospital facilities. However, it is crucial to dispel this misconception and highlight the fact that the provision of medical care within the criminal justice system is not determined by one's economic status. Every inmate, regardless of his financial standing, is entitled to receive basic medical care, a fundamental human right that transcends socio-economic disparities.

Equally significant is what is then pointed out in para 17 that:
In a just and equitable legal system, the principle of equality before the law is paramount. This means that every individual, regardless of their wealth or social status, is subject to the same legal standards and protections. The right to medical health care is intrinsic to this principle, ensuring that no inmate is denied basic healthcare services solely based on their financial resources. It is essential to recognize that, in the eyes of the law, every prison inmate is equal and possesses the basic human right to receive adequate medical care, reinforcing the foundational principles of a legal system which is not only just but also humane.

It is worth noting that the Bench notes in para 18 that:
The present case brings to light a critical issue concerning the standard of medical treatment within correctional facilities, shedding light on the alarming inadequacies in the healthcare infrastructure for prison inmates.

Further, the Bench adds in para 19 that:
The report submitted by the prison dispensary in the present case points to a distressing reality– the lack of a proper medical care facilities, i.e. physiotherapy equipments. The absence of these essential equipments not only signify lack of adequate medical infrastructure in the prisons, but also the direct repercussion of the same on the health of the inmates requiring physiotherapy etc.

Most commendably, the Bench expounds in para 20 that:
In this Court's opinion, in cases of a convicted prisoner, contracting a disease or his health deteriorating and him being not extended health care is not part of his sentence. Similarly, in case of under trial prisoners, this fact becomes even more significant as some of the under trials may be suffering from serious diseases or may contract or suffer from serious diseases which may have the potential of being fatal or potentially disabling.

This has led this Court to consider that the basic right of a citizen while being incarcerated to health care is not obliterated or surrendered to the State. Prisoners are human beings too and they retain some undeniable human rights which have to be acknowledged by every Court of law and the State. Respect for, and the resolute of the Court's to unfalteringly uphold the human rights of the prisoners as a constitutional Court has traditionally been in India evidenced in the various judgments of the Apex Court and this Court.

Most forthrightly, the Bench postulates in para 21 that:
It is important to recognize that the responsibility for ensuring the well-being of individuals in judicial custody lies squarely with the State Government. Prisons, as custodial institutions, must provide not only security but also essential medical facilities to meet the healthcare needs of inmates. It is also the duty of the State to ensure and monitor not only the conditions of the prisoners in general, but also their health issues and the health facilities provided in the prisons.

Needless to say, the Bench then states in para 22 that:
Health care is a critical issue for the prisoners as they cannot look after themselves for the reason of their detention, therefore, it is the responsibility of the State to provide for adequate health services to the prisoners equivalent to that available to the free population.

Lamentably, the Bench laments in para 23 that:
Unfortunately, in the present case, as per report of the Medical Officer Incharge, Central Jail-07, Dispensary, Tihar, New Delhi, the machines required for the physiotherapy sessions of the applicant were not in working order. The prison population which includes vulnerable groups in terms of health conditions needs to be taken into account and adequate health facilities should be provided inside the jail as due to various reasons, the under trials have to remain within confines of the jail. Inadequate access to medication and health care or delays in providing timely medical interventions may, at times, have permanent devastating effect on prisoners health.

To be sure, the Bench then underscores in para 24 aptly observing that:
The Courts cannot allow inadequate prison health care system to violate a prisoner's right to timely and adequate medical health care. Preserving the health of the prisoners would require a mechanism to monitor and promote the health care system available in the prisons. In face of increased health vulnerabilities, many prisoners have heightened risk of permanent damage to their bodies. In this regard, it became important for this Court to review the protection and legal obligations of the State to provide high, however, attainable standard of health care, which is part of right to life.

As things stands, the Bench concedes in para 25 that:
At the same time, this Court also acknowledges that it is not possible for the jail authorities through the State, to have every kind of advanced medical equipment in the jail medical set up to meet the requirements of some prisoners, who may require special treatment for the diseases they suffer from. For this reason, this Court has directed that a high, however attainable standard of health care which is part of right to life be ensured within the confines of the prison to the prisoners who depend on the State for health care.

Most sagaciously, the Bench underscores in para 26 that:
This Court also reiterates that there can be no distinction between rich and poor in terms of finances for the purpose of providing them medical facilities and the prisoners in case of special needs will have to be first referred to the referral hospitals as per jail referral policy and in case, such treatment as required or recommended for them is not adequate or available in those hospitals, they can be allowed by the order of a Court to be treated at a hospital where the treatment required by them is available, thus, ensuring that their health is not compromised with.

Quite rightly, the Bench directs in para 27 that:
At this stage, this Court notes that the medical facilities available at the jail dispensary is not able to provide the medical treatment which is required by the applicant, as advised by the doctors concerned in terms of post-epidural care after his spinal surgery. Thus, considering that at this stage, no immediate arrangement can be made by the jail dispensary for ensuring appropriate medical care. of the applicant, this Court deems it fit, for the purpose of ensuring that a balance is struck between the right of the prisoners to appropriate medical care and the right of the State to ensure rule of law, to allow the request of applicant to get the required physiotherapy treatment at the Safdarjung Hospital, Delhi. In case, the required medical care is not available at Safdarjung Hospital, Delhi, the applicant may move a fresh application before this Court for being treated at Indian Spinal Injuries Centre, Vasant Kunj, Delhi.

Most interestingly, the Bench then states in para 28 that:
This Court issues the following directions qua the prayer of the petitioner:

 

  1. The applicant be admitted to Safdarjung Hospital, Delhi, which is also a referral hospital as per Jail Referral Policy, Delhi for a period of two weeks, within two days of receipt of this order. However, the applicant shall continue to be in the custody of Superintendent of Jail concerned, and the Jail Superintendent concerned shall ensure that appropriate and adequate security is provided/deputed in the hospital since the accused will continue to remain in judicial custody though under treatment in the hospital.
  2. The Jail Superintendent concerned shall make arrangement to shift the applicant in an ambulance to the said Hospital.
  3. The Medical Superintendent of Safdarjung Hospital, Delhi will constitute a medical board which will furnish a weekly report to this Court regarding the medical status of the applicant and the need to continue treatment or hospitalization and also provide a copy of the same to the Enforcement Directorate and Central Bureau of Investigation.
  4. It is also ordered that the entire expenses of medical treatment, hospitalization, security, and other incidental expenses incurred on the treatment shall be borne by the applicant.
  5. During hospitalisation, the wife and children of the applicant are permitted to meet him between 11 AM to 12 PM and between 4 PM to 5 PM subject to the meeting hours and applicable rules of the hospital. The mother of the applicant Smt. Simrit Dhall will be permitted to meet the applicant daily during the prescribed meeting hours of the hospital. The sisters of applicant i.e. Smt. Simer Dhall and Smt. Komal Singh Dhall will be permitted to meet the applicant on alternative days during the meeting hours of the hospital.
  6. The concerned Superintendent Jail shall ensure that the meeting schedule so mentioned above will be strictly adhered to.
  7. The applicant shall not be allowed to use phone.
  8. The family members of applicant may provide him home-cooked food, if so allowed by the doctor concerned.
  9. The family members of the applicant shall not be allowed to carry phone with them, while meeting the applicant.
  10. The learned counsel for the applicant will be allowed legal interview with the applicant, as per jail manual and rules.


As a directive to the Government of NCT of Delhi, the Bench then notes in para 29 that:
This case serves as a reminder that the quality of medical care within correctional facilities must be held to high standards, with a focus on the well-being and rehabilitation of inmates. The State Government has a moral and legal obligation to ensure that the healthcare needs of inmates are met with the same diligence and commitment as any other citizen.

Finally and far most significantly, the Bench then concludes by holding in para 30 that:
This Court observes that Government of NCT of Delhi is responsible for the management and maintenance of the prison premises. Since, it is crucial to have appropriate medical care system in the prisons which meets the requirements of the inmate patients, thus, the following directions are being issued to the Government of NCT of Delhi by this Court:

  1. This Court directs the Secretary (Home), Government of NCT of Delhi, and Secretary, Health and Family Welfare, Government of NCT of Delhi to ensure that the health care requirements of the prison inmates are met and adequate medical infrastructure in the jail premises is maintained for ensuring right of prisoners to appropriate medical care.
     
  2. This Court further directs the concerned doctors Incharge of respective Jail Dispensaries to furnish the list of requirements of adequate medical equipment which is essential for the medical care of the prison inmates, to the concerned Chief Medical Officers.
     
  3. The Chief Medical Officers of all the prisons will submit a weekly report to the Director General, Prisons, who will communicate this report to the Jail Visiting Judicial Officer/Judge concerned regarding inadequacies or urgent requirements in their respective jail hospital/dispensary including the working or nonworking condition of the machines and medical equipment and availability of medicines, etc.
     
  4. The weekly report prepared by the Chief Medical Officers of all the prisons will also be sent to Secretary (Home), Government of NCT of Delhi, and Secretary, Health and Family Welfare, Government of NCT of Delhi. The issues so pointed out in the report mentioned above, will be addressed and the necessary supplies, equipments, medicines will be ensured to be provided within two days. The machines/medical equipment if not in order, will be repaired or a substitute will be provided immediately by the State.
     
  5. The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare, Government of NCT of Delhi will constitute a Committee which apart from him will include the following:
    • Director General (Prisons)
    • The CMO of the Delhi Prisons
    • Two senior Jail Visiting Judges of the District Courts to be nominated by the Principal District & Sessions Judge (Central District)
    • The Secretary, DSLSA
    • Sh. Sanjay Dewan, Advocate
    • Ms. Gayatri Puri, Advocate
       
  6. The above committed will give suggestions, regarding improving the health care facilities in the prisons and ways to promote equal health care to all prisoners, within a period of one month to this Court.
     
  7. The committee will also specifically inform the Court as to whether facilities are available in the jail hospital to deal with emergency situations such as cardiac arrest, hemorrhages etc. as the first few minutes in such eventuality are crucial to save life of a person.

In a nutshell, we thus see that the Delhi High Court has made it indubitably clear that every prisoner is entitled to basic medical care. It rightly called upon the Government of NCT of Delhi to improve the medical infrastructure in jail so that the prisoners can get timely medical aid and don't suffer from lack of it.

The Court made clear that the State Government has a moral and legal obligation to ensure that the health care needs of inmates are met with the same diligence and commitment as that of any other citizen. It was also made crystal clear by the Court that there cannot be discrimination of any kind between the prisoners on the basis of rich or poor! Very rightly so!

Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate,
s/o Col (Retd) BPS Sirohi, A 82, Defence Enclave,
Sardhana Road, Kankerkhera, Meerut – 250001, Uttar Pradesh

Comments

There are no comments for this article.
Only authorized users can leave comments. Please sign in first, or register a free account.
Share
Sponsor
About Author
Sanjeev Sirohi Advocate
Member since Apr 20, 2018
Location: Meerut, UP
Following
User not following anyone yet.
You might also like
The general principle, is that a FIR cannot be depended upon a substantive piece of evidence.The article discusses the general priciple, along with exceptions to it.
Victim plays an important role in the criminal justice system but his/her welfare is not given due regard by the state instrumentality. Thus, the role of High Courts or the Supreme Court in our country in affirming and establishing their rights is dwelt in this article.
Can anybody really know what is going inside the heads of criminal lawyers? I mean, yes, we can pick bits of their intelligence during courtroom trials and through the legal documents that they draft.
Terrorism and organized crimes are interrelated in myriad forms. Infact in many illustration terrorism and organized crimes have converged and mutated.
Right to a copy of police report and other documents As per section 207 of CrPC, accused has the right to be furnished with the following in case the proceeding has been initiated on a police report:
In terms of Section 2 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 hereafter referred to as 'the Act'), "human rights" means the rights relating to life, liberty, equality and dignity of the individual guaranteed under the Constitution
The Oxford dictionary defines police as an official organization whose job is to make people obey the law and to prevent and solve crime
the Supreme Court let off three gang rapists after they claimed a ‘compromise formula’ with the victim and agreed to pay her a fine of Rs 50,000 each for their offence.
benefit those prisoners who are kept in solitary confinement, the Uttarakhand High Court delivered a landmark judgment in the case of State of Uttarakhand v 1. Mehtab s/o Tahir Hassan 2. Sushil @Bhura s/o Gulab Singh Criminal Reference No. 1 of 2014 on April 27, 2018
this article helps you knowing how to become a criminal lawyer
helps you to know adultery and its types
In the landmark case of Manoj Singh Pawar v State of Uttarakhand & others Writ Petition (PIL) No. 156 of 2016 which was delivered on June 18, 2018, the Uttarakhand High Court issued a slew of landmark directions
Scope and ambit of Section 6 of Indian Evidence Act,1872
Victims of Crime Can Seek Cancellation of Bail: MP HC in Mahesh Pahade vs State of MP
State of Orissa v Mahimananda Mishra said clearly and convincingly that the court must not go deep into merits of the matter while considering an application for bail and all that needs to be established from the record is the existence of a prima facie case against the accused.
Yashwant v Maharashtra while the conviction of some police officers involved in a custodial torture which led to the death of a man was upheld, the Apex Court underscored on the need to develop and recognize the concept of democratic policing wherein crime control is not the only end, but the means to achieve this order is also equally important.
20 more people guilty of killing a 60-year-old Dalit man and his physically-challenged daughter. Upheld acquittals of 21 other accused, holding that there was insufficient evidence to establish their guilt. So it was but natural that they had to be acquitted
No person accused of an offence punishable for offences involving commercial quantity shall be released on bail or on his own bond unless
Accident under section 80 under the Indian Penal Code falls under the chapter of general exceptions. This article was made with the objective of keeping in mind the students of law who are nowadays in dire need of material which simplify the law than complicating it.
Nishan Singh v State of Punjab. Has ordered one Nishan Singh Brar, convicted of abduction and rape of a minor victim girl, and his mother Navjot Kaur to pay Rs 90 lakh towards compensation.
Rajesh Sharma v State of UP to regulate the purported gross misuse of Section 498A IPC have been modified just recently in a latest judgment titled Social Action Forum Manav for Manav Adhikar and another v Union of India Ministry of Law and Justice and others.
Kodungallur Film Society vs. Union of India has issued comprehensive guidelines to control vandalism by protesting mobs. Vandalism is vandalism and it cannot be justified under any circumstances. Those who indulge in it and those who instigate it must all be held clearly accountable and made to pay for what they have done most shamefully.
Ram Lal vs. State of Himachal Pradesh If the court is satisfied that if the confession is voluntary, the conviction can be based upon the same. Rule of prudence does not require that each and every circumstance mentioned in the confession must be separately and independently corroborated. Absolutely right There can be no denying it
Joseph Shine case struck down the law of adultery under Section 497. It declared that adultery can be a ground for civil issues including dissolution of marriages but it cannot be a criminal offence. It invalidated the Section 497 of IPC as a violation of Articles 14 and 15 and under Article 21 of the Constitution
Mallikarjun Kodagali (Dead) represented through Legal Representatives v/s Karnataka, Had no hesitation to concede right from the start while underscoring the rights of victims of crime that, The rights of victims of crime is a subject that has, unfortunately, only drawn sporadic attention of Parliament, the judiciary and civil society.
State of Kerala v Rasheed observed that while deciding an application to defer cross examination under Section 231(2) of the Cr.P.C. a balance must be struck between the rights of the accused, and the prerogative of the prosecution to lead evidence. The Apex Court in this landmark judgment also listed out practical guidelines.
Reena Hazarika v State of Assam that a solemn duty is cast on the court in the dispensation of justice to adequately consider the defence of the accused taken under Section 313 CrPC and to either accept or reject the same for reasons specified in writing.
Zulfikar Nasir & Ors v UP has set aside the trial court judgment that had acquitted 16 Provincial Armed Constabulary (PAC) officials in the 1987 Hashimpur mass murder case. The Delhi High Court has convicted all the accused and sentenced them to life imprisonment.
In Babasaheb Maruti Kamble v Maharashtra it was held that the Special Leave Petitions filed in those cases where death sentence is awarded by the courts below, should not be dismissed without giving reasons, at least qua death sentence.
Shambhir & Ors v State upholding the conviction and punishment of over 80 rioters has brought some solace to all those affected people who lost their near and dear ones in the ghastly 1984 anti-Sikh riots which brought disrepute to our country and alienated many Sikhs from the national mainstream
Naman Singh alias Naman Pratap Singh and another vs. UP, Supreme Court held a reading of the FIR reveals that the police has registered the F.I.R on directions of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate which was clearly impermissible in the law.
It has been a long and gruelling wait of 34 long years for the survivors of 1984 anti-Sikh riots to finally see one big leader Sajjan Kumar being sentenced to life term by Delhi High Court
Rajendra Pralhadrao Wasnik v State of Maharashtra held that criminals are also entitled to life of dignity and probability of reformation/rehabilitation to be seriously and earnestly considered before awarding death sentence. It will help us better understand and appreciate the intricacies of law.
Sukhlal v The State of Madhya Pradesh 'life imprisonment is the rule and death penalty is the exception' has laid down clearly that even when a crime is heinous or brutal, it may not still fall under the rarest of rare category.
Deepak v State of Madhya Pradesh in which has served to clarify the entire legal position under Section 319 CrPC, upheld a trial court order under Section 319 of the CrPc summoning accused who were in the past discharged by it ignoring the supplementary charge sheet against them.
It has to be said right at the outset that in a major reprieve for all the political leaders accused of being involved in the Sohrabuddin fake encounter case, in CBI, Mumbai vs Dahyaji Goharji Vanzara
Devi Lal v State of Rajasthan the Supreme Court has dispelled all misconceived notions about suspicion and reiterated that,
Madhya Pradesh v Kalyan Singh has finally set all doubts to rest on the nagging question of whether offences under Section 307 of IPC can be quashed on the basis of settlement between parties.
Dr Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar v Maharashtra made it amply clear that if a person had not made the promise to marry with the sole intention to seduce a woman to indulge in sexual acts, such an act would not amount to rape.
Rajesh v State of Haryana conviction under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (Abetment of Suicide) is not sustainable on the allegation of harassment without there being any positive action proximate to the time of occurrence on the part of the accused, which led or compelled the person to commit suicide.
Nand Kishore v Madhya Pradesh has commuted to life imprisonment the death sentence which was earlier confirmed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court of a convicted for the rape and murder of an eight-year-old girl.
Raju Jagdish Paswan v. Maharashtra has commuted the death penalty of a man accused of rape and murder of a nine year old girl and sentenced him to 30 years imprisonment without remission.
Swapan Kumar Chatterjee v CBI permitting the application filed by the prosecution for summoning a hand writing expert in a corruption case of which the trial had started in 1985. On expected lines, the Bench accordingly delivered its significant judgment thus laying down the correct proposition of law to be followed always in such cases
Sukhpal Singh v Punjab that the inability of the prosecution to establish motive in a case of circumstantial evidence is not always fatal to the prosecution case. Importance of motive in determining the culpability of the accused but refused to acknowledge it as the sole criteria for not convicting the accused in the absence of motive.
Gagan Kumar v Punjab it is a mandatory legal requirement for Magistrate to specify whether sentences awarded to an accused convicted for two or more offences, would run concurrently or consecutively.
Dnyaneshwar Suresh Borkar v Maharashtra Even poem can help save a death convict from gallows. The Apex Court has in this latest, landmark and laudable judgment commuted the death penalty of a kidnap cum murder convict who was just 22 years of age at the time of occurrence
Himachal Pradesh v Vijay Kumar Supreme court held about acid attack crime that a crime of this nature does not deserve any kind of clemency.
Death Sentence Can Be Imposed Only When Life Imprisonment Appears To Be An Altogether Inappropriate Punishment: SC
S. Sreesanth v. The Board of Control For Cricket In India the Supreme Court set aside a life ban imposed on former Indian cricketer S Sreesanth in connection with the 2013 IPL spot-fixing scandal and asked the BCCI Disciplinary Committee to take a fresh call on the quantum of his punishment under the Anti-Corruption Code.
Adding Additional Accused To Invoke Section 319 CrPC Stronger Evidence Than Mere Probability of Complicity of A Person Required: SC stated in Sugreev Kumar v. State of Punjab
Top