Source: Bombay High Court

Why in News?

Recently, the Bombay High Court in the matter of XYZ v. State of Maharashtra & Ors., has held that the medical treatment cannot be denied to a pregnant minor girl by the hospital merely because no police complaint was filed in the matter.

What was the Background of XYZ v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. Case?

• In this case, a writ petition has been filed before the Bombay High Court by the petitioner to protect the legal rights and health interest of her daughter, who as on date is stated to be 17 years and 4 months old.
• As set out in the petition, sometime back it came to the petitioner’s knowledge that her daughter was about seven months pregnant.
• Her daughter has refused to disclose the details in that regard, stating that her relationship with the person concerned, who is also a minor, was consensual.
• The petitioner’s daughter, as also the petitioner, does not intend to take any legal action taken against such person, with whom she was in a relationship.
• The grievance of the petitioner is that in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, whenever the petitioner approached a clinic or a hospital for medical treatment for her daughter, she was called upon to show a police complaint made by her.
• While disposing off the petition, the High Court held that medical treatment would be provided to the petitioner’s daughter independently or by a special method and confidentiality would be maintained including the name of the petitioner’s daughter and shall render all care and cooperation to her in regard to her medical condition till the child is born.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• A Division Bench of Justices GS Kulkarni and Firdosh Pooniwalla observed that in these circumstances, there cannot be an insistence from any medical centres or hospitals, that nonetheless, the petitioner (minor girl's father) should register a police complaint as a condition to receive medical treatment. Merely for the reason that there is no police complaint, the petitioner’s daughter cannot be denied medical aid.
• It was also stated that the grant of medical aid to any person is a direct concomitant of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (COI) which guarantees right to life and livelihood which includes the protection of one’s health by making available appropriate medical aid. In a civilized society no person can be deprived of medical aid/treatment, much less in the present circumstances.

What is Article 21 of the COI?

About:

• Article 21 deals with the protection of life and personal liberty. It states that no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.
  • The right to life is not merely confined to animal existence or survival but also includes the right to live with human dignity and all those aspects of life which go to make a man’s life meaningful, complete and worth living.
• Article 21 secures two rights:
  • Right to life
  • Right to personal liberty
• This article is characterized as the procedural Magna Carta protective of life and liberty.
• This fundamental right is available to every person, citizens and foreigners alike.
• The Supreme Court of India have described this right as the Heart of Fundamental Rights.
• This right has been provided against the State only.

Rights under Article 21:

• The rights that Article 21 covers are as follows:
  • Right to privacy
  • Right to go abroad
  • Right to shelter
  • Right against solitary confinement
  • Right to social justice and economic empowerment
  • Right against handcuffing
  • Right against custodial death
  • Right against delayed execution
  • Doctors’ assistance 10. Right against public hanging
  • Protection of cultural heritage
  • Right to pollution-free water and air
  • Right of every child to a full development
  • Right to health and medical aid
  • Right to education
  • Protection of under-trials

Case Laws

• In Francis Coralie Mullin v. The Administrator (1981), Justice P. Bhagwati said that Article 21 of the COI embodies a constitutional value of supreme importance in a democratic society.
• In Kharak Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1963), the Supreme Court held that by the term life, something more is meant than mere animal existence. The inhibition against its deprivation extends to all those limbs and faculties by which life is enjoyed. The provision equally prohibits the mutilation of the body by amputation of an armored leg or the pulling out of an eye, or the destruction of any other organ of the body through which the soul communicates with the outer world.