IMPORTANT POINT
The right to health and medical treatment for prisoners is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, and the State's failure to provide such care can result in liability for compensation.

JUDGMENT/ORDER

ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, J. - Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and taken up for final hearing at admission stage with the consent of learned counsel for the parties.

2. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the parents, widow and children of the deceased Pratap Kute, an undertrial prisoner who died in custody, for grant of compensation of Rs.90.00 Lakhs for loss of life due to the negligence of the jail authority.

3. The petitioners claim that the deceased Pratap was suffering from spondylosis and severe pain. It is alleged that since he was not provided medical treatment, he filed an application before the Magistrate to shift him to Government Hospital, Beed for proper medical treatment. The said application was dismissed with observations that the Superintendent of Jail is able to take proper care and provide medical facility to the deceased. It is alleged that the deceased was not given any treatment despite his request at initial stage and it was only after his condition deteriorated that he was shifted to Government Hospital, Beed. It is further stated that since the condition of the deceased was critical, the doctor at Government Hospital, Beed had advised to shift the deceased to Government Medical College, Aurangabad for further treatment. The deceased was not shifted to Government Medical College, Aurangabad and the concerned Police Constable made an endorsement that he is not able to shift the deceased to Government Medical College, Aurangabad and will have no complaint in case of any untoward incident/ risk to the life of the deceased Pratap. The deceased expired on 27/2/2012. The petitioners claim the death of deceased Pratap was due to callous and negligent attitude of the jail authority.

4. Anil Subhash Paraskar, the Superintendent of Police, Beed has filed his affidavit-in-reply wherein he has denied that the deceased died due to negligence of the jail or State authority. He has stated that at the time of admission of the deceased in jail, he had stated that he did not have any ailment. On 23/2/2012, the deceased complained of chest pain and back pain and he was immediately taken to District Government Hospital, Beed. Two Police Guards were deputed at the hospital. The deceased died on 27/2/2012 and on the basis of the information given by one of the Guards A.D. No.6/2012 was registered. He has stated that inquiry was conducted by the State C.I.D. and subsequently pursuant to the order in Criminal Writ Petition No.72/2013, the Sub-Divisional Police Officer conducted inquiry and recommended disciplinary action against the duty police guard Chaudante for his negligence in his duty. It is stated that the deceased was HIV Positive and he died due to complications of the said ailment. He has stated that the deceased was not subjected to ill-treatment while he was in jail.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the son of the petitioners No.1 and 2 died while he was in prison, due to negligence of the jail authorities. He, therefore, contends that the petitioners are entitled for compensation.

6. Per contra, learned A.P.P. submits that though the doctors regularly visit the jail, the deceased had not complained to the doctor or the jail authorities about his ailment. He was shifted to the hospital immediately after he complained of ill- health and was given necessary medical treatment. He submits that the jail authorities cannot be held responsible for the death of the deceased. Learned A.P.P. states that, there were three inquiries including magisterial inquiry, C.I.D. as well inquiry by the National Human Rights Commission and that all the authorities have recorded a finding that it is not a case of custodial death due to ill-treatment. Learned A.P.P. further submits that the authority has also been absolved of charge of negligence.

7. We have gone through the record and considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the respective parties. The