Author: Yashi Singh, Arya Kanya Degree college, University of Allahabad, Prayagraj
To the Point
The COVID-19 pandemic exposed India’s healthcare system vulnerabilities at its core, accelerating the debate on the enforceability of the Right to Health in law. Although not directly enshrined as a fundamental right in the Indian Constitution, the courts have invariably read it to be an essential component of Article 21, the Right to Life and Personal Liberty. Post-pandemic, the need for a strong, enforceable right to health has become more unprecedented than ever, calling for legislative measures and increased judicial oversight to provide equitable access, quality health care, and a robust public health system for all citizens.
Use of Legal Jargon
This article ventures into constitutional interpretation, statutory law, and judicial jurisprudence to explore the changing contours of the Right to Health in India.
The content explores how fundamental rights intersect with the Directive Principles of State Policy, focusing on the State’s dual responsibility—both to act (positive duties) and to refrain from certain actions (negative duties)—and highlights the importance of public interest in this framework. (PIL) in widening access to healthcare. The debate will also refer to the shortcomings of current laws such as the Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897, and the Disaster Management Act, 2005, in responding to overall public health crises, and the continuous call for a specific Right to Health Act.
Abstract
The COVID-19 pandemic laid bare the gaps in India’s healthcare system, ranging from poor infrastructure and resource mobilization to inequities in access and quality of service.
This article discusses the enforceability of the Right to Health under Indian law in the post-pandemic world, tracing its constitutional origin, development through judicial interpretation, and challenges to successful realization.”It emphasizes how legal interpretations have evolved to embed the Right to Health within the broader scope of the Right to Life under Article 21, guided by the values enshrined in the Directive Principles of State Policy.” In addition, it responds to the call for thorough legislative overhauls to make a genuinely justiciable and enforceable Right to Health possible, protecting people against future health emergencies and a more equal and resilient healthcare system.
The Proof
Constitutional Foundations
Though the Indian Constitution does notenumerate the “Right to Health” as an independent fundamental right in Part III, the Supreme Court has slowly broadened the meaning of Article 21, which provides the “Right to Life and Personal Liberty,” to include the Right to Health as a fundamental part of living with dignity. “The logic is that a life of dignity, as envisioned in Article 21, cannot be realized in the absence of adequate healthcare services
Furthermore, several Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP) in Part IV of the Constitution lay down the State’s responsibility towards public health:
Article 38 places an obligation on the State to establish a social system aimed at enhancing the welfare and overall well-being of its citizens.
Article 39(e) directs the State to ensure that the physical strength and well-being of both male and female workers as well as young children are not misused or exploited.
Article 41 mandates the State to provide public assistance to persons in situations of unemployment, sickness, old age, or physical disability, as far as its means extend.
According to Article 42, the State is expected to ensure fair and respectful working environments and to make sufficient provisions for maternity benefits
Article 47 binds the State to give top priority to improving the standards of nutrition, the level of living, and public health as basic obligations.
Although DPSPs cannot be enforced directly in courts, the Supreme Court time and again has asserted that DPSPs are basic to the country’s governance and it is the responsibility of the State to include these guiding principles when enacting legislation and policy initiatives. They act as guide lights for interpreting basic rights and laying positive obligations on the State.
There is no impact of COVID-19 on the call for codification.
The COVID-19 crisis was a hard reminder of the repercussions of an under-financed and disjointed health care system. Bed and oxygen shortages, medicine, and health care staff shortages alongside prohibitively high prices in the private sector exposed the fragility of a system with excessive dependence on out-of-pocket spending. The crisis raised the need for the clear affirmation and legislative support of the Right to Health.
The pandemic highlighted the fact that only construing the Right to Health as a component of Article 21, though essential, may not be enough to establish a holistic, proactive, and enforceable framework.
Current legal tools like the Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897, which were originally drafted for an era gone by, were found wanting in coping with a pandemic of the new age, with much emphasis on containment instead of rights-based delivery of healthcare. Likewise, the Disaster Management Act, 2005, though it enunciated a framework of response to disasters, specifically did not tackle the subtleties of a public health emergency from a rights arena. The demand for a standalone “Right to Health Act” has picked up strongly.
Legislation would shift the right from an interpretative to a codified, statutory domain, specifically delineating the State’s responsibility, citizens’ rights, and grievance redressal mechanisms. The Right to Health Bill, 2021, while still to be passed, is a manifestation of this increasing legislative intention, seeking to make provision for health as a human right and ensure equitable access to quality health care. The recent Right to Healthcare Act, 2022, of Rajasthan, while initially criticized over the issue, marks an important move by a state to enact this right.
Challenges to Enforcement
Despite judicial pronouncements and growing legislative efforts, several challenges impede the effective enforcement of the Right to Health in India:
Underfunding of Public Health: India’s public health expenditure remains significantly low as a percentage of its GDP, leading to inadequate infrastructure, shortages of personnel, and limited access to essential services, especially in rural and remote areas.
Federal Form: Health is largely a State Subject under the Indian Constitution, and hence there are differences in healthcare policies, financing, and delivery at the state level. This may result in inconsistency in the realization of the right.
Predominance of Private Sector: The growing private sector in healthcare, though providing sophisticated facilities, tends to work on profit considerations, resulting in high out-of-pocket spending and discriminatory access by the economically disadvantaged.
Shortage of Specific Laws: Lack of a single overarching Right to Health Act with specific entitlements and redress mechanisms complicates the ability of citizens to assert their rights.
Human Resource Deficits: Insufficient number of doctors, nurses, and other medical professionals, especially in public sector health facilities and in rural settings, affect the quality and availability of services.
Social Determinants of Health: Realization of the Right to Health is organically linked with other social determinants such as access to sanitation, clean water, nutrition, and education, which are themselves highly challenged in India.
Case Laws
Indian courts have expansively interpreted Article 21 to include the Right to Health as a crucial element of the Right to Life. Some of the prominent judgments include:
Paschim Banga Khet Mazdoor Samity v. State of West Bengal (1996): The Supreme Court held that it is the constitutional duty of the government to furnish proper medical assistance to everyone. The Court held that the maintenance of human life is the most important aspect and that of the State to give medical facilities to the people is a duty.
Consumer Education and Research Centre v. In the 1995 case of Union of India, the Supreme Court recognized that workers are entitled to health care and medical aid as a part of their fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 21. It ruled that the right to life would be valueless unless the right to health and medical attention is ensured to safeguard the health and strength of a worker during service and after retirement.
Parmanand Katara v. Union of India (1989): The Supreme Court laid stress on the supreme importance of saving human life, holding that all doctors, whether in a government hospital .It is a moral and legal obligation of medical professionals to offer necessary care to preserve the life of a patient. It held that no one’s life should be put in jeopardy because of legal technicalities.
Vincent v. Union of India (1987): The Supreme Court noted that a healthy body is the very cornerstone of all activities of human beings and in a welfare state, it is the responsibility The State has the responsibility of creating and preserving conditions that facilitate and enhance the health of its people.”
“In Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India (1984), the Supreme Court broadened the connotation of ‘life’ in Article 21 to encompass living with dignity, which, although indirectly pertaining to health, paved the way towards recognizing health as a basic right.” for the inclusion of health as an aspect of dignified life.
Rajasthan High Court’s Suo Moto Cognizance: The recent examples, i.e., the Rajasthan High Court taking suo moto cognizance of malnutrition/obesity among citizens and poor health services in the state (July 2025 and November 2024, respectively), illustrate the ongoing judicial activism in asserting the Right to Health, even in the absence of legislative provisions.
Conclusion
The COVID-19 pandemic was a turning point, beyond any doubt proving that the Right to Health is no lofty ideal but an innate desire for the well-being of the individual and the strength of the nation. Even as the judiciary has heroically construed Article 21 to encompass the Right to Health, this approach is fraught with difficulties—particularly in making health rights universally and forcefully applicable throughout the country.
The post-pandemic world requires a firm transition towards enacting the Right to Health in a nationwide legislation. This would establish a concrete legal framework, delineate minimum quality standards of care, create mechanisms of accountability, promote equitable distribution of resources, and rectify the structural inequalities besetting the Indian health system. It needs to include a strong public health orientation, going beyond cure-oriented care to prioritize preventive health, health promotion, and determinants of health.
The legal enforcement of the Right to Health post-COVID-19 in India hinges on a multi-pronged approach: strengthening the public health infrastructure, increasing public health expenditure, effectively regulating the private healthcare sector, and most crucially, enacting a dedicated Right to Health Act that transforms a judicially recognized right into a universally enforceable one, ensuring that no citizen is left behind in the pursuit of a healthy and dignified life.
FAQs
Q1: Is the Right to Health explicitly guaranteed as a Fundamental Right in the Indian Constitution, or has it been interpreted to be a part of Article 21 by the judiciary?
A1: Although the Right to Health is not specifically stated under Part III of the Indian Constitution, the Supreme Court has consistently recognized it as an essential component of the fundamental rights, particularly under Article 21. The Right to Life and Personal Liberty, enshrined in Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, has been interpreted by the judiciary to encompass various dimensions essential for a dignified human existence. Over time, this provision has been expansively read to include rights such as health, livelihood, clean environment, and education, thereby strengthening the framework of socio-economic justice in India.
Q2: In what ways has the COVID-19 pandemic influenced the conversation surrounding the Right to Health?
A2: The pandemic exposed severe deficiencies in India’s healthcare system, highlighting the urgent need for a robust and legally enforceable Right to Health to ensure equitable access to quality healthcare for all citizens, moving beyond mere judicial interpretation to a statutory framework
Q3: What are the main challenges to enforcing the Right to Health in India?
A3: Key challenges include low public health expenditure, the dominance and unregulated nature of the private healthcare sector, lack of a specific national Right to Health Act, shortages of healthcare Although constitutional and judicial developments have strengthened the recognition of healthcare rights, significant gaps still exist in access to medical services, particularly when comparing urban regions to rural areas. The shortage of qualified medical professionals in rural regions further deepens the crisis, creating an imbalance in the distribution of healthcare services across the country.
Q4: What role do Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP) play in the Right to Health?
A4: DPSPs, particularly Articles 38, 39(e), 41, 42, and 47, guide the State in formulating health policies and are used by courts to interpret the scope of fundamental rights, including the Right to Health. They signify the State’s commitment to public welfare and health.
Q5: Are there any legislative efforts towards a dedicated Right to Health Act?
A5: Yes, there have been discussions and proposals, including The Right to Health Bill, 2021, at the central level. Additionally, some states, like Rajasthan, have taken the initiative to enact their own Right to Healthcare Acts. These efforts aim to provide a more explicit and enforceable legal framework for this right.
