Right to Life Under Article 21 Includes Timely Medical Care for Prisoners; State Vicariously Liable for Negligence: Orissa High Court - 2025-11-25

Court Orders & Legal Analysis.

Orissa High Court Awards ₹20 Lakh Compensation to Widow for Husband's Custodial Death Due to Medical Negligence

CUTTACK, ODISHA – The Orissa High Court has awarded a compensation of ₹20 lakhs to Sabita Nishank, the widow of an under-trial prisoner (UTP) who died due to a lack of timely and adequate medical treatment while in custody. The bench, led by Justice Biraja Prasanna Satapathy, held that the death resulted from the negligence of jail authorities, constituting a violation of the deceased's fundamental right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution.

Background of the Case

The petitioner, Sabita Nishank, filed a writ petition seeking ₹50 lakhs in compensation for the premature death of her husband. Her husband, a Panchayat Executive Officer, was arrested on September 20, 2016, and remanded to Nimapara Sub-jail as an under-trial prisoner.

The deceased was a chronic diabetic patient since 2008, a fact known to the jail authorities. Despite his condition, his health deteriorated significantly during his four months in custody. Alarmed by his worsening health, Ms. Nishank filed an application before the Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC), Pipili, on January 21, 2017, pleading for proper medical treatment for her husband.

Only after this legal intervention did the jail authorities, on January 24, 2017, request the court to order his transfer to a better-equipped hospital. He was subsequently shifted to the District Headquarter Hospital in Puri and then to SCB Medical College and Hospital in Cuttack on January 25, 2017. Tragically, he passed away the very next day, on January 26, 2017.

Arguments Presented

Petitioner's Counsel: The petitioner argued that the jail authorities were grossly negligent. They contended that despite being aware of the deceased's chronic diabetes, the authorities failed to provide the necessary medical care, diet, and medicines. The delay in shifting him to a proper hospital, which occurred only after the petitioner's intervention, was fatal. This failure, they argued, was a direct violation of his fundamental right to life.

State's Counsel: The State, representing the jail authorities, refuted the allegations of negligence. They claimed the deceased was provided with regular medical check-ups and medicines. They pointed out that the prisoner had not raised any complaints during a visit by the District and Sessions Judge in December 2016. The State maintained that they had acted promptly upon receiving the court's direction to transfer the prisoner for better treatment.

High Court's Rationale and Legal Principles

Justice Satapathy, after examining the facts, found the State's defense unconvincing. The Court determined that the timing of the authorities' actions was critical. The request to shift the prisoner for "better treatment" came only after his wife filed a formal application, by which time his health had already severely declined.

The Court observed:

> "This Court taking into account the contents of the letter dt.24.01.2017 under Annexure-2 series, is of the view that by the time direction was issued to shift the UTP for better treatment, his health condition had already deteriorated."

The judgment heavily relied on established legal precedents, including the landmark case of D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal , which affirms that fundamental rights are not denied to prisoners. The Court reiterated that the right to life under Article 21 is not mere animal existence but includes the right to live with human dignity, which encompasses adequate medical care.

The Court emphasized the State's strict duty of care for individuals in its custody, stating: > "The precious right guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution of India cannot be denied to convicts, under trials, detenus and other prisoners in custody, except according to the procedure established by law. There is a great responsibility on the police or prison authorities to ensure that the citizen in its custody is not deprived of his right to life."

Finding the negligence of the jail authorities to be "well proved," the Court concluded that the State was vicariously liable for the actions of its officials.

Final Judgment

The High Court held that Sabita Nishank was entitled to compensation for the loss of her husband due to the State's negligence. Considering the deceased's earning capacity and the petitioner's future, the Court directed the State of Odisha to pay a compensation of ₹20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lakhs) to the petitioner.

The payment is to be made within six weeks from the date of receipt of the court's order.