Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 43633
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
G. R. Swaminathan, V. Lakshminarayanan, JJ
T. Devanathan Yadav – Appellant
Versus
Deputy Superintendent of Police – Respondent
WP Crl. No. 1201 of 2026|W.M.P.(Crl) No. 413 of 2026|W.M.P.(Crl) No. 414 of 2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: J. Sivananda Raj, K. R. Ramesh Kumar
For the Respondents: C. R. Malarvannan, R. Thirumoorthy
An undertrial prisoner has the right to access medical treatment of their choice, including in a private facility, provided they bear the financial costs and security arrangements are satisfied, as part of the fundamental right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
Headnote:The petitioner, an undertrial prisoner, sought permission to undergo medical treatment in a private hospital. The court analyzed Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to life, to determine if this includes the right to medical treatment of one's choice. While the state and the depositors' association opposed the request citing security concerns and potential misuse of funds, the court held that an undertrial prisoner, while in custody, is entitled to receive proper medical care. The central issue was whether an undertrial prisoner can insist on treatment in a private facility at their own cost. The court adopted the ratio that while such a right is not absolute and is subject to security implications, it should be granted if no prejudice is caused to the authorities, provided that the prisoner bears all costs, including police escort, to mitigate public concerns. The writ petition is allowed with directions to the prison authorities to shift the petitioner to a private hospital for a period of ten weeks under strict police escort.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. fundamental right to medical treatment under article 21. (Para 1 , 8) |
| 2. contextual facts and competing interests (petitioner health vs. security and societal objection). (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. judicial order allowing private treatment with conditional financial and security safeguards. (Para 6 , 7 , 9 , 10) |
(Order of the Court was made by G.R.Swaminathan J.)
Any undertrial prisoner is entitled to consult and be defended by a legal practitioner of his choice. This is a fundamental right guaranteed under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India. Question arises if he is also entitled to consult and be treated by a medical practitioner of his choice. Can such a right be brought within the scope of Article 21 of the Constitution of India?
2. Before we answer, it is necessary to set out the facts leading to the filing of this writ petition. The writ petitioner was the Chairman and Managing Director of a financial establishment known as Mylapore Chit Funds Limited. This was established way back in the year 1872. The petitioner would claim that due to COVID-19 pandemic there was a run on the institution which led to large scale default. In the wake of default committed by the Company, Crime No.14 of 2024 was registered by the Economic Offences Wing of Chennai. The petitioner was arrayed as A2. He was arrested on 13.08.2024. Final report was filed before the Special Judge for TNPID Act Cases, Chennai. The case was taken on file in C.C.No.1 of 2025 for the offences under Sections 409, 420 read with 34 IPC, 22 of BUDS Act and Section 5 of TNPID Act 1997 and Section 61(2), 316(5), 319(2), 344, 336(2) 338 read with Section 3(5) of BNS, 2023, Section 22 of BUDS Act and Section 5 of TNPID Act, 1997. The petitioner is presently in custody. He was out on interim bail for a brief period. He has been in incarceration for close to 600 days.
3. The petitioner is aged about 66 years. He is a senior citizen and he is said to be suffering from a host of ailments such as immense Blood Pressure, shoulder dislocation, diabetes and spinal tuberculosis. He is also having neurological issues. He was treated in Stanley Medical Hospital. The petitioner has now been transferred to Central Prison, Cuddalore. The petitioner has been treated in Government Hospital, Villupuram as well as Government Headquarters Hospital Cuddalore and he underwent multiple tests including MRI scan. The petitioner has been diagnosed with having neurological disorders along with Ortho related ailments. The petitioner had been medically advised to undergo two surgical procedures, one on his shoulder and one on the spine. The petitioner is also suffering from prolapsed spinal disc with compression of the nerve routes . These surgical procedures cannot be undertaken successively. There has to be necessarily time gap between the procedures, during which the petitioner will have to take physiotherapy also.
4. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the writ petitioner submitted that the petitioner wants to take treatment in a private hospital and that he may be shifted from jail for that purpose for a period of twelve weeks.
5. The petitioner’s request was strongly opposed both by the State as well as the learned counsel appearing for the impleaded respondent. While they conceded that the petitioner should be given treatment, but he cannot insist that he should be given treatment in a private hospital. Responding to the petitioner’s claim that he would bear the attendant costs, the learned counsel for the impleaded respondent submitted that the petitioner cannot be allowed to enjoy with the hard earned money of the depositors. It is further stated that if the petitioner is shifted to a private hospital, the depositors may assemble there in large numbers and that may lead to law and order situation.
6. We carefully considered the rival submissions and went through the materials on record.
7. In order to ascertain the period that may be needed for giving proper treatment to the
