Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(Gau) 1227

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
Manash Ranjan Pathak, Mridul Kumar Kalita, JJ.
Sabura Khatun, W/O- Lt. Rahijuddin Sk. – Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Assam, Rep. By The Comm. And Secy. To The Govt. Of Assam, Home Deptt. And Ors. – Respondents
Wp(C)/306/2021
Decided On : 20-09-2024

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. S A Ahmed, Miss M Gogoi, Ms F Ahmed
For the Respondent: Mr. D. Nath, Sr. Govt. Adv.

IMPORTANT POINT
The right to life under Article 21 includes the right to adequate medical treatment for prisoners, and failure to provide such treatment can lead to state liability for compensation.

Headnote:
Compensation - Judicial Custody Death - Article 21, Constitution of India - The court emphasized the right to adequate medical treatment for prisoners, interpreting Article 21 as encompassing health care rights, leading to a decision for compensation due to negligence in medical care.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought compensation for the death of her husband, who died in custody due to alleged negligence in providing medical treatment for his chronic illness, pneumonia, while in judicial custody.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the deceased was not provided adequate medical treatment for his chronic illness during his time in custody, violating his right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Issues: Whether the state authorities failed to provide adequate medical treatment to the deceased while he was in judicial custody, leading to his death.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the right to life under Article 21 includes the right to adequate medical treatment for prisoners, and failure to provide such treatment constitutes a violation of fundamental rights.
Result: The court awarded Rs. 3,00,000 as compensation to the petitioner for the death of her husband due to negligence in medical care.

JUDGMENT :

Mridul Kumar Kalita, J.

1. Heard Mr. S. A. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. D. Nath, learned Senior Government Advocate, Assam appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 to 7.

2. This writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the petitioner, namely, Sabura Khatun, seeking adequate compensation on account of death of her husband, namely, Rohijuddin Sk., who died in the Gauhati Medical College and Hospital (GMCH), while in judicial custody, on 30.06.2018.

3. The facts for consideration of the instant writ petition, in brief, are that the husband of the petitioner, namely, Late Rohijuddin Sk. was arrested on 24.05.2018 in connection with Bilasipara Police Station Case No. 525/2018 under Sections 147/149/436/325 of the Indian Penal Code. The aforesaid case was registered on filing of an FIR, on 23.05.2018, by one Nur Hussain Bhuyann before the Officer-in-Charge of Bilasipara Police Station. In the said FIR allegations were made against the accused persons named in the FIR, including the deceased husband of the present petitioner, that they have set the house of the first informant on fire with an intention to forcefully dispossess the informant from his plot of land. In the FIR, allegation is also made against the accused persons that they had assaulted the informant and their family members causing serious injuries on their person.

4. After arrest of the husband of the petitioner in the aforesaid case, he was produced before the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate(M), Bilasipara, Dhubri on the same date i.e., 24.05.2018 and he was remanded to the judicial custody in the District Jail, Dhubri.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that as the husband of the petitioner was ill, the Superintendent of District Jail, Dhubri on 29.06.2018 submitted a letter to the Superintendent of Police, Dhubri to provide the police escort on 30.06.2018 for escorting the sick prisoner (husband of the petitioner) from the District Jail, Dhubri to Gauhati Medical College and Hospital (GMCH) for better medical treatment. However, on 01.07.2018, the husband of the petitioner passed away while he was under treatment at GMCH. On 02.07.2018, the post-mortem examination was conducted on the dead body of the husband of the petitioner.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the cause of the death of the husband of the petitioner as stated in the death certificate issued by the GMCH on 11.01.2019 was mentioned as “pneumonia”.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that though the petitioner’s husband was suffering from pneumonia, however, he was not treated properly for the said ailment while he was in custody, which resulted in his death while in judicial custody due to negligence of jail authority in providing proper medical care and treatment for the ailment which he was suffering.

8. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that the petitioner's right to life which is guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India includes the right to be provided with adequate and appropriate medical treatment when he was in judicial custody, which was not provided to the husband of the petitioner that resulted in his death.

9. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that as the petitioner's husband was the sole bread earner of his family, hence, his untimely death in custody has put the petitioner and his other family members, who were dependent on his earning in extreme financial hardship.

10. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that the petitioner is suffering due to abject poverty and ignorance, which is also the reason for the petitioner approaching this Court belatedly.

11. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that under the aforementioned circumstances where the fundamental rights of the husband of the petitioner to get adequate medical treatment, while he was in judicial