#right to health

The Bombay High Court granted bail to a 65-year-old accused with a critical heart condition, emphasizing that prolonged pre-trial detention violates the right to health under Article 21 when no overt act is visible in CCTV footage and charge framing remains pending. This ruling reinforces that medical vulnerability and lack of direct involvement must weigh heavily in bail decisions, even in serious Arms Act cases.

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has ruled that a convict suffering from a compound fracture is entitled to temporary bail if jail medical facilities cannot provide adequate care, affirming the right to health under Article 21. This sets a clear precedent for non-commercial NDPS offenders with severe, verifiable medical emergencies, balancing custodial obligations with constitutional rights to life and dignity.

The Rajasthan High Court has granted 15-day interim bail to an accused undergoing radiation therapy for carcinoma, prioritizing the right to health under Article 21 over the gravity of NDPS charges. This sets a clear precedent that life-saving medical treatment can override statutory bail restrictions when no flight risk exists and treatment is time-sensitive.

The Chhattisgarh High Court ruled that Article 21’s guarantee of right to life and health overrides mechanical denial of medical parole, even when prison rules are technically unmet. When institutional medical care is insufficient to save a life, the state must facilitate external treatment - setting a precedent for terminally ill prisoners nationwide.

Jharkhand High Court rules that industrial units must comply with Rule 41 of Jharkhand Building Bye-laws, 2016, ensuring dedicated parking and trauma care facilities within accessible distance. The judgment reinforces workers' and commuters' right to health under Article 21, holding authorities accountable for industrial negligence.

Jharkhand High Court holds that the Right to Health under Article 21 requires not just infrastructure but trained staff, equipment, and 24/7 care in burn units. The court directed the state to operationalize burn units in all 24 district hospitals within 120 days, emphasizing state accountability for emergency medical care.

CAT Kolkata rules that pensioners receiving Fixed Medical Allowance remain entitled to reimbursement for specialized or life-threatening treatments under the CS(MA) Rules. The judgment clarifies that the allowance is supplementary, not substitutive, ensuring pensioners' right to health is protected without opting for CGHS or PMJAY.

Punjab & Haryana HC rules that denying post-retirement medical reimbursement under PRMS for treatment at NABH-accredited hospitals-merely due to lack of formal empanelment-violates Article 21. The term 'hospital of national repute' must be interpreted liberally to include accredited institutions, ensuring pensioners' right to health without arbitrary administrative barriers.

Madras High Court rules that CGHS beneficiaries are entitled to full reimbursement for emergency medical treatment, even if costs exceed approved rates. The court mandated referral of such claims to the Technical Standing Committee, rejecting mechanical denial and affirming the primacy of the right to health under Article 21 over procedural compliance.

Karnataka High Court holds that prison authorities must promptly verify medical certificates and decide emergency parole applications under Karnataka Prisons Rules, 2021.