SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2012 Supreme(Raj) 599

(Rajasthan High Court)
Jaipur Bench
Vaman Narayan Ghiya Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. (Mishra, CJ.)
HON'BLE ARUN MISHRA, CJ.
HON'BLE NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN-I, J.
Vaman Narayan Ghiya
Versus
State of Rajasthan & Anr.
D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.942 of 2008, decided on 08.05.2012

Advocates Appeared
S.S. Hora, for Appellant;
Shashikant Saini for R.P. Singh, Addl. Advocate General and Arpit Srivastava, for Respondents

Headnote:Constitution of India, Art. 21 — Scope of Art. 21 — Appellant is convict prisoner — Suffering from various diseases including right inguinal hernia — Doctors of SMS Hospital, Jaipur prescribed surgery for it — Respondents are ready to allow him to be treated there — Appellant refused as there is no proper medical/nursing care in SMS Hospital — Intends to obtain specialist treatment of his diseases at the hospital and by the doctors of his choice at his own expenses — Entitlement — Held — The prisoners do have the right to obtain medical treatment u/Art. 21, however, it is subject to safety — A prisoner cannot dictate his choice in this regard — The decision of the State has to be based on overall consideration of nature of ailment and the kind of medical intervention required and its availability — SMS Hospital, Jaipur is renowned and highly reputed hospital — It is well equipped with all high tech, ultra modern facilities — His ailment can be effectively treated here — The decision of the respondent commensurates to the nature of ailment — Warrants no interference. (Paras 25 to 27)

       Appeal disposed.

        Hkkjr dk lafo/kku] vuqPNsn 21 & vuqPNsn 21 dh O;kfIr & vihykFkhZ nks"kfl) dSnh gS & gjfu;k lfgr fofHkUu chekfj;ksa ls xzflr & ,l-,e-,l- vLirky] t;iqj ds fpfdRldksa us blds fy, 'kY; fØ;k fu/kkZfjr dh & izR;FkhZx.k mldk ogka mipkj djkus gsrq lger & vihykFkhZ us badkj fd;k D;ksafd ogka dksbZ mfpr esfMdy@uflZax ns[kHkky dh O;oLFkk ugha & vius Lo;a ds [kpsZ ij viuh ilan ds vLirky o fpfdRldksa ls fo'ks"kK mipkj djkus gsrq vkeknk & ik=rk & vfHkfu/kkZfjr & dSfn;ksa dks Hkh vuqPNsn 21 ds vUrxZr fpfdRlh; mipkj gkfly djus dk vf/kdkj gS] fdUrq ;g lqj{kk ds v/;/khu gS & dksbZ Hkh dSnh bl lEcU/k esa viuh ilan Fkksi ugha ldrk & ljdkj dk fu.kZ; chekjh dh izd`fr o okafNr fpfdRlh; gLr{ksi dk izdkj rFkk mldh miyC/krk ds lexz fopkj ij vk/kkfjr gksuk pkfg;s & ,l-,e-,l- vLirky] t;iqj ,d izfl) ,oa mPp izfrf"Br vLirky gS & ;g leLr mPp izkS|ksfxdh ,oa uohure vk/kqfud lq[k lqfo/kkvksa ls lqlfTtr gS & mldh chekjh dk ;gka izHkkoh <ax ls mipkj fd;k tk ldrk gS & izR;FkhZ dk fu.kZ; chekjh dh izd`fr ds vuq:i gS & gLr{ksi okaNuh; ughaA ¼in la[;k 25 ls 27½

       vihy fuLrkfjr dhA

       

Hon'ble MISHRA, CJ.—The intra-court appeal has been preferred as against the order dated 18th March, 2008 passed by the Single Bench whereby the writ application of the appellant was partly allowed and the petitioner was permitted to be treated in judicial custody at SMS Hospital, Jaipur for the diseases which have been diagnosed by the specialist doctors. The State Government was also directed to frame suitable guidelines for medical treatment of the under-trial/convict prisoners within a period of three months.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant-petitioner was arrested during the course of investigation in FIR No.146/2003 registered at Police Station Vidhyadhar Nagar, Jaipur and since 7.6.2003 he is in judicial custody. The allegations against the petitioner relate to commission of offences under Sections 401, 411 & 413 IPC and Sections 5/25(1) and 14/25(2) of the Antiquities and Art Treasurers Act. Apart from the above case, many criminal cases are pending against the petitioner before various courts in the State of Rajasthan. The petitioner has been medically examined from time to time by jail doctors or the doctors of SMS Hospital, Jaipur and he was found to be suffering from various diseases like inguinal hernia, hiatus hernia, inflammation of gall bladder, enlarged prostate, dental etc. When the proper treatment was not given to the petitioner, he filed S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6894/2003 and while disposing of the said writ petition vide order dated 19.11.2003, the Single Bench directed the respondents to take assistance of a specialist from a Government hospital in the department of Gastroentrology or if necessary a team of specialists who can visit the petitioner in jail and assess about his ailment and his health condition. Thereafter, the petitioner moved an application on 30.11.2006 before the trial court under sections 167 and 309 Cr.P.C. praying therein that the order of the High Court be complied with and the trial court observed that under the aforesaid provisions of law, it has no power to make available special medical treatment to the under trial prisoners. As regards the non-compliance of the order of the High Court, the trial court observed that the petitioner is free to move an application before the High Court.

3. Subsequently, the petitioner was examined on 16.6.2007 and it was found that he is suffering from enlarged prostate. He was again examined on 6.12.2007 and it was found that he was also suffering from inflammation of the gall bladder and hernia. The petitioner was also advised to go for dental check up. on 24.2.2007, the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.l, Jaipur observed that he had no right to determine as to the place of the treatment of an under trial prisoner and it is for the jail authorities to decide the matter. It was further submitted that the jail authorities were grossly negligent in providing medical treatment to the petitioner and referred him to the SMS Hospital, Jaipur but he did not agree for the surgery of hernia in SMS Hospital, Jaipur as there is no proper medical/nursing care in SMS Hospital. According to petitioner, he was denied fundamental right to proper and adequate medical treatment during his custody without just cause and denial of proper medical treatment in custody is arbitrary and unreasonable exercise on the part of the jail authorities-respondents. Hence, the writ application was filed contending inter-alia that the petitioner has a fundamental right under Article 21 of the "Constitution of India to be treated by the doctor of his own choice at his own expenses and not allowing the petitioner to get himself treated by the doctor of his own choice at his own expenses is violative of Article 21 and for that, reliance was placed on the judgments of the Apex court in Nilabati Behera (Smt.) @ Lalita Behera vs. State of Orissa and Ors. ((1993) 2 SCC 746), D.K. Basu vs. State of W.B. ((1997) 1 SCC 416) and Bibhuti Nath Jha vs. State of Bihar (




























































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top