Right to Health under the Indian Constitution: Scope, Case Laws & Judicial Evolution Explained

---

The “Right to Health” has become one of the most significant components of constitutional law and public policy in India. Although the Indian Constitution does not expressly mention the right to health as a fundamental right, the judiciary has progressively expanded its scope through interpretation, making it an essential part of the right to life under Article 21. Today, the right to health is seen as a core element of human dignity, state responsibility, and welfare governance.

This blog analyses the constitutional basis of the right to health, its evolution through landmark Supreme Court judgments, and the emerging judicial trends that are shaping India’s medico-legal landscape.

This judicial expansion reflects India’s commitment to aligning constitutional law with international human rights standards, including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and WHO’s emphasis on health as a basic right.

1. Constitutional Basis of the Right to Health

1.1 Article 21 – The Foundation

The right to health derives primarily from Article 21, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty. The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that “life” means more than mere animal existence; it encompasses living with dignity, access to healthcare, and a healthy environment.

1.2 Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSPs)

While non-justiciable, DPSPs guide the State in formulating policies related to health:

• Article 38: State must secure a social order promoting welfare.
• Article 39(e) & (f): Protect the health of workers, men, women, and children.
• Article 41: Provide public assistance in cases of sickness and disability.
• Article 47: Improve public health as a primary duty of the State.

Together, these provisions create a constitutional ethos where health is not merely a policy goal but a guiding principle for governance. The Supreme Court often interprets these provisions to give substance to Article 21.

1.3 Fundamental Duties – Article 51A(g)

Citizens also have the duty to safeguard the environment, reinforcing the idea that health is linked to a pollution-free environment.

2. Evolution of the Right to Health Through Case Law

2.1 Consumer Education & Research Centre v. Union of India (1995)

The Supreme Court held that the right to health and medical care is a fundamental right under Article 21. It emphasised employer responsibility for providing health safeguards to workers.
This case is pivotal because it connected health not only to the State but also to private entities engaged in hazardous industries.

2.2 Paschim Banga Khet Mazdoor Samity v. State of West Bengal (1996)

This landmark judgment affirmed that the State is constitutionally obligated to provide adequate medical facilities. The Court held that failure of government hospitals to provide timely treatment to an accident victim violated Article 21.
Importantly, the Court stated that lack of resources cannot be used as an excuse by the State.

2.3 State of Punjab v. Mohinder Singh Chawla (1997)

The Court reiterated that the right to health is integral to the right to life. The State must reimburse the medical expenses of employees, emphasizing health as a State responsibility.

2.4 Laxmi Mandal v. Deen Dayal Harinagar Hospital (2010)

The Delhi High Court held that denial of maternal healthcare services to pregnant women amounted to a violation of Article 21 and 14. It was a major step in recognising maternal health as a fundamental right. This case also highlighted the intersection of health rights with gender justice, reinforcing that reproductive health is inseparable from constitutional guarantees.

2.5 Paramanand Katara v. Union of India (1989)

The Court declared that every doctor, whether in a private or public hospital, has a professional obligation to extend medical aid to preserve life. This strengthened emergency care obligations across the medical sector.

2.6 Municipal Council, Ratlam v. Vardichan (1980)

Although not strictly a medical case, the Court recognised sanitation, cleanliness, and public health as legal obligations of the State and local bodies. It set the foundation for environmental health jurisprudence.

2.7 Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India (1984)

The Court affirmed that humane living conditions, nutrition, and protection from occupational hazards are part of the right to health under Article 21.

2.8 Mohd. Ahmed v. Union of India (2014)

This case recognised that lifesaving drugs must be made accessible to every citizen, especially children suffering from rare diseases. It pushed the State to create mechanisms for funding extremely expensive treatments. It marked a turning point in rare‑disease jurisprudence, compelling the State to balance resource allocation with individual dignity.

3. Judicial Trends Shaping the Right to Health

3.1 Expanding State Responsibility

Recent judgments emphasise that the State cannot avoid its healthcare obligations even during financial constraints or emergencies. Courts have consistently directed governments to provide:

• free medicines,
• emergency treatment,
• maternal and reproductive healthcare,
• vaccination and preventive health schemes.

3.2 Linking Health to Environmental Justice

The courts increasingly view health as inseparable from a pollution-free environment.

For instance, in Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar (1991), the Supreme Court held that the right to life includes the right to pollution-free water and air.
Similarly, orders on air pollution, such as the Delhi pollution cases, reflect a trend towards environmental health protection.

3.3 Regulation of Medical Profession

Courts have also intervened to regulate hospitals and medical negligence:

• enforcing patient rights,
• regulating private healthcare pricing,
• mandating strict licensing and accreditation norms.

The Supreme Court’s guidelines in Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab (2005) balanced doctors’ protection from frivolous criminal cases with patients’ right to fair treatment.

3.4 Public Health Emergencies

During the COVID-19 pandemic, the judiciary actively monitored:

• oxygen supply,
• hospital bed allocation,
• migrant workers’ health,
• vaccine distribution.

This demonstrated a strong trend of judicial activism to protect public health in emergencies.

3.5 Mental Health as a Constitutional Right

Following the enactment of the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017, courts have reiterated that mental health services form part of Article 21. For instance, the Delhi High Court in 2017 emphasized the State’s duty to provide accessible psychiatric care, reflecting a constitutional shift towards holistic health.

4. Right to Health and Future Directions

The judiciary has laid a strong foundation for health as a fundamental right, but there are emerging challenges:

• unequal access to healthcare across rural and urban regions,
• affordability issues in private hospitals,
• shortage of doctors and mental health professionals,
• rising costs of rare-disease treatment,
• gaps in health insurance coverage,
• need for stronger regulation of pharmaceuticals and medical devices.

Another emerging dimension is digital health — telemedicine, electronic health records, and AI‑driven diagnostics — which raises new questions of privacy, accessibility, and constitutional safeguards. With proposals such as the National Health Policy and Ayushman Bharat, India is moving toward universal healthcare, but judicial oversight remains crucial.

Conclusion

The right to health has evolved from being merely a directive principle to becoming one of the most vigorously protected facets of Article 21. Through progressive judgments, the Indian judiciary has expanded its scope to include emergency medical care, maternal health, environmental health, workplace safety, and access to life-saving medicines.

As healthcare becomes increasingly complex, the courts continue to play a central role in shaping policies, ensuring accountability, and protecting human dignity. The trajectory of judicial interpretation shows that health rights are not static; they evolve with societal needs, technological advances, and global health challenges. For law students and professionals, understanding the evolution of the right to health is essential to grasping the intersection between constitutional law and medicine.

Listen to Podcast :

Listen on Spotify: Podcast in English

Listen on Spotify: Podcast in Hindi

---

Also Read: Legal Framework for Medical Negligence in India

References

1. Consumer Education & Research Centre v. Union of India, (1995) 3 SCC 42.
2. Paschim Banga Khet Mazdoor Samity v. State of West Bengal, (1996) 4 SCC 37.
3. Mohinder Singh Chawla v. State of Punjab, (1997) 2 SCC 83.
4. Laxmi Mandal v. Deen Dayal Harinagar Hospital, (2010) Delhi HC.
5. Paramanand Katara v. Union of India, (1989) 4 SCC 286.
6. Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India, (1984) 3 SCC 161.
7. Municipal Council, Ratlam v. Vardichan, (1980) 4 SCC 162.
8. Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar, (1991) 1 SCC 598.
9. Mohd. Ahmed v. Union of India, (2014) Delhi HC.
10. Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab, (2005) 6 SCC 1.

#RightToHealth #Article21 #IndianConstitution #HealthLaw #MedicalLaw #SupremeCourtCases #ConstitutionalLawIndia #PublicHealthPolicy #RightToLife #JudicialActivism #LawAndMedicine #LegalBlogIndia #MumbaiUniversity #LLBNotes #Podcast