Arun Mishra, C.J.@mdashThe 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. 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 Gastroenterology 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.
2. 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. 1, 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
3. The respondents have not disputed the fact of illness of petitioner and submitted that the accused petitioner has not consented for RIH operation in SMS Hospital, Jaipur and without his consent, operation was not possible. Even after refusal, the petitioner is getting best medical aids and facilities. The jail authorities are also taking assistance of specialists for the treatment of the petitioner. It was further submitted that day to day hearing is going on in the trial as per direction of High Court where presence of accused petitioner is necessary. After court hours and after completion of evidence of the prosecution witnesses, the petitioner is free to take medical assistance as per his own choice and at his own cost.
4. After hearing the parties and considering the decisions cited at bar, the single bench vide order dated 18.3.2008 allowed the writ petition partly and permitted the petitioner to be treated in judicial custody at SMS Hospital, Jaipur for the diseases which have been diagnosed by the specialist doctors. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has preferred the intra-court appeal.
5. Mr. S.S. Hora, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has submitted that the appellant is suffering from various diseases including right inguinal hernia, hiatus hernia, inflammation of gall bladder, enlarged prostate, severe dental problem and the doctor of SMS Hospital, Jaipur has prescribed surgery for right inguinal hernia as well as for prostate, but the appellant does not want his treatment from SMS Hospital Jaipur as he feels that there is no proper medical/nursing care in SMS Hospital and even when appellant was taken for diagnosis, the machines were found in disorder and not available. Moreover, the SMS Hospital has had a history of unjustifiable discharging the appellant under police pressure on 10.4.2008. It was further submitted that despite several pronouncements made by the Apex Court, the appellant has been denied fundamental right to proper and adequate medical treatment during his custody without any reason and denial of such right shows arbitrariness and unreasonableness on the part of the respondents-jail authorities. Reliance was placed on the decisions of the Apex Court in
6. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted that the appellant has not given consent for RIH operation in SMS Hospital and therefore, operation was not possible and even after refusal, he is being provided best medical aids and facilities in the custody. The jail authorities are also taking services of specialists for treatment of diseases of the appellant. Thus, the appellant was not justified in saying that he was denied proper and adequate medical treatment during his custody.
7. There is no dispute that the appellant is suffering from various diseases including right inguinal hernia for which SMS Hospital, Jaipur has advised for surgery. It is also not disputed that treatment of diseases with which the appellant is suffering is available in SMS Hospital, Jaipur. The respondents are prepared to allow the appellant to be treated in SMS Hospital, Jaipur in the judicial custody, but appellant refused for operation of right inguinal hernia as according to him, there is no proper medical/nursing care in SMS Hospital and he seeks direction to allow him to obtain treatment from hospital and doctor of his choice on his own cost.
8. The question that arises for consideration is whether appellant, who is in judicial custody, is entitled to obtain specialist treatment of his diseases at the hospital and by the doctors of his choice at his own expenses.
9. The life is not animal existence. Though in jail the liberty to move freely remains suspended, still the prisoners are entitled to enjoy certain rights which are capable of being conferred to such inmates. Though Courts will refuse to give all the rights contained in Part III enjoyed by a free citizen, Constitutional Karuna has been injected into incarceratory strategy by courts, maintaining healing hope. Courts are duty bound to enforce legitimate expectation of corrective system. Rehabilitative approach is hallmark of the day; basic medical facilities cannot be refused to prisoners; the basic element of care to sustain life are bound to be adopted. Barbaric inhuman treatment cannot be meted out to a prisoner. The united Nations in various reports have dealt with rights of prisoners for medical treatment. The recommendations made in Mulla Committee Report were emphasized by the Apex Court for Prison Reforms Policy. The Apex Court has also recognized that hospital treatment may also be recognized as part of sentence. The Apex court has Emphasized on "Penal" treatment, Patanjali Sutras, spiritual dimension have been projected into penology by purposive interpretation of provisions of most vibrant Constitution of India. A convict is entitled to rights under Article 21; self preservation is pan of it Courts have recognized concept of grant of bail in appropriate cases for treatment purposes. The prisoner''s interest in the limited liberty left to him is valuable right.
10. Article 10(3) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966 provides that juveniles be segregated from adults and accorded treatment appropriate to their age. Article 10(3) is quoted below:-
Article 10(3).- The penitentiary system shall comprise treatment of prisoners the essential aim of which shall be their reformation and social rehabilitation. Juvenile offenders shall be segregated from adults and be accorded treatment appropriate to their age and legal status.
11. The Survey of United Nations and other Best Practices in the Treatment of Prisoners in the Criminal Justice System, 2010 laid emphasis on "principle of normalization" and reintegration of prisoner into society. Following is the relevant portion of the Report:-
A corollary of the rehabilitative aim of imprisonment, in accordance with Article 10 (3) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, is that prisoners should receive treatment that takes into account to the greatest extent possible the individual needs of every prisoner and is tailored to their individual sentence and rehabilitation plan. Needless to say, the "principle of normalization" not only serves the interest of prisoners to rehabilitation and re-socialization, it also serves the wider interest of society to reduce the risk of recidivism and, thereby, the overall crime rate. This principle is not just an invention of the Government of Denmark; it derives from Article 10 of the Covenant and is explicitly laid down in Rule 60(1) of the Standard Minimum Rules, in Rule 5 of the revised European Prison Rules and in similar soft law instruments. Unfortunately, only very few countries in the world, above all in Northern Europe, follow this important principle aimed at the re-integration of prisoners into normal society life.
12. The Twelfth United Nations Congress on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice in its Workshop-2 held at Salvador, Brazil in April 2010 also addressed to the aspects of medical care. Following is the relevant portion of the Report:-
Para 30. When the State imprisons or detains someone it takes on the responsibility of looking after his or her health. All necessary medical care and treatment must be provided free of charge. The standard of preventive, curative, reproductive and palliative medical care must be at least the same as that in the outside community, regardless of the regime of the detention. The World Health Organization (WHO) guide to health in prisons provides valuable information on the provision of health care in prisons.
Para 33. Detainees and prisoners who require medical attention are patients. They are entitled to privacy both in consultation with medical staff and in their treatment. If safety is a serious concern, consultations may take place within sight but not within hearing of a detention officer. If a medical condition is identified, a detainee should be informed of all treatment possibilities available. This applies in particular for drug-dependence treatment.
Para 39. International standards require staff to monitor the effect of detention on the mental health of detainees and prisoners. People with mental health problems are over-represented in many prison systems; in some countries prisons are even used to house mentally ill persons who have not committed any offence. Effective practices include the integration of strategies to promote mental health into the overall prison management strategy the creation of a positive prison environment; an integrated approach to mental health care that does not rely solely on medication, if at all; suicide awareness and prevention (e.g. in respect of at risk prisoners in Australia): and specialized treatment (e.g. equine therapy in Mexico). In the United Kingdom multidisciplinary teams aim to offer prisoners the same kind of specialist care and treatment they would receive in the community. The UNODC Handbook on Prisoners with Special Needs provides guidance on these matters.
13. The Basic Principles of United Nations for the Treatment of Prisoners provide for Human Rights, access to health service etc. Relevant Principles" are quoted below:-
Principle 5. Except for those limitations that are demonstrably necessitated by the fact of incarceration, all prisoners shall retain the human rights and fundamental freedoms set out in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and, where the State concerned is a party, the International Covenant on Economic. Social and Cultural Rights, and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Optional Protocol thereto, as well as such other rights are set out in other United Nations Covenants.
Principle 9. Prisoners shall have access to the health services available in the country without discrimination on the grounds of their legal situation.
14. The United Nations'' Body of Principles for the Protection of all persons under any form of detention or imprisonment also provides for proper medical examination, care and treatment. Following are the relevant Principles:-
Principle 1.-- All persons under any form of detention or imprisonment shall be treated in a humane manner and with respect for the inherent dignity of the human person.
Principle 24.- A proper medical examination shall be offered to a detained or imprisoned person as promptly as possible after his admission to the place of detention or imprisonment, and thereafter medical care and treatment shall be provided whenever necessary. This care and treatment shall be provided free of charge.
Principle 25.- A detained or imprisoned person or his counsel shall, subject only to reasonable conditions to ensure security and good order in the place of detention or imprisonment, have the right to request or petition a judicial or other authority for a second medical examination or opinion.
Principle 26.- The fact that a detained or imprisoned person underwent a medical examination, the name of the physician and the results of such an examination shall be duly recorded. Access to such records shall be ensured. Modalities there for shall be in accordance with relevant rules of domestic law.
15. The United Nations'' Standard Minimum Rules for Treatment of Prisoners also recognize the right to obtain specialized treatment with suitable trained officer. Rules 22(2) and 25(2) are quoted below:-
Rule 22(2).- Sick prisoners who require specialist treatment shall be transferred to specialized institutions or to civil hospitals. Where hospital facilities are provided in an institution, their equipment, furnishings and pharmaceutical supplies shall be proper for the medical care and treatment of sick prisoners, and there shall be a staff of suitable trained officers.
Rule 25(2).- The medical officer shall report to the director whenever he considers that a prisoner''s physical or mental health has been or will be injuriously affected by continued imprisonment or by any condition of imprisonment.
16. The Apex court has recognized various rights to jail inmates. In the case of
4. Contemporary profusion of prison torture reports makes it necessary to drive home the obvious, to shake prison top brass from the callous complacency of unaccountable autonomy within that walled-off world of human held incommunicado. Whenever fundamental rights are flouted or legislative protection ignored, to any prisoner''s prejudice, this Court''s writ will run, breaking through stone walls and iron bars, to right the wrong and restore the rule of law. Then the parrot-cry of discipline will not deter, of security will not scare, of discretion will not dissuade, the judicial process. For if courts ''cave in'' when great rights are gouged within the sound-proof, sight-proof precincts of prison houses, where, often, dissenters and minorities are caged, Bastilles will be re-enacted. When law ends tyranny begins; and history whispers, iron has never been the answer to the rights of men. Therefore we affirm that imprisonment does not spell farewell to fundamental rights although, by a realistic re-appraisal, courts will refuse to recognise the full panoply of Part III enjoyed by a free citizen.
5. This proposition was not contested by the learned Additional Solicitor General Sri Soli Sorabjee. Nor does its soundness depend, for us, upon the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Article 21, read with Article 19(1) (d) and (5), is capable of wider application than the imperial mischief which gave its birth and must draw its meaning from the evolving standards of decency and dignity that mark the progress of a mature society, as Batra and Sobraj have underscored and the American Judges have highlighted. Fair procedure is the soul of Article 21, reasonableness of the restriction is the essence of Article 19(5) and sweeping discretion degenerating into arbitrary discrimination is anathema for Article 14. Constitutional karuna is thus injected into incarceratory strategy to produce prison justice. And as an annotation of Article 21, this Court has act opted, in
Something more than mere animal existence. The inhibition against its deprivation extends to ail those limbs and faculties by which life is enjoyed. The provision equally prohibits the mutilation of the body by the amputation of an arm or leg, or the putting out of an eye, or the destruction of any other organ of the body through which the soul communicates with the outer world.
8. Viewed differently, supposing a court sentences a person to simple imprisonment or assigns him ''B'' class treatment and the Jail authorities unwittingly or vindictively put him under rigorous imprisonment or subject him to ''C'' class treatment, does it not show contempt of the court''s authority and deprivation of liberty beyond a degree validated by the court warrant ? Likewise, where a prisoner is subjected to brutality, exploiting the fact that he is helplessly within the custody of the Jail Administration, does it not deprive the prisoner of his life and liberty beyond the prescribed limits set by the court ? Yet again, where conditions within a prison are such that inmates incarcerated therein will inevitably and necessarily become more sociopathic than they were prior to the sentence, is not the court''s punitive purpose, charged with healing hope, stultified by the prison authorities ? Of course, where a prison practice or internal instruction places harsh restrictions on jail life, breaching guaranteed rights the court directly comes in. Every prison sentence is a conditioned deprivation of life and liberty, with civilised norms built in and unlimited trauma interdicted. In this sense, judicial policing of prison practices is implied in the sentencing power. The Criminal judiciary have thus a duty to guardian their sentences and visit prisons when necessary. Many of them do not know or exercise this obligation.
9. Another jurisdictional facet may be touched upon in view of the widely worded relief sought to treat Sobraj ''in a human and dignified manner, keeping in view the adverse effect of his confinement upon his mental and physical conditions''. The penological goals which may be regarded as reasonable justification for restricting the right to move freely within the confines of a penitentiary are now well-settled. And if prisoners have title to Articles 19, 21 and 14 rights, subject to the limitation we have indicated, there must be some correlation between deprivation of freedom and the legitimate functions of a correctional system. It is now well-settled, as a stream of rulings of courts proves, that deterrence, both specific and general, rehabilitation and institutional security are vital considerations. Compassion wherever possible and cruelty only where inevitable is the art of correctional confinement. When prison policy advances such a valid goal, the court will not intervene officiously.
10. This overall attitude was incorporated as a standard by the American National Advisory Commission on Crime Justice standards and Goals:-
...A rehabilitative purpose is or ought to be implicit in every sentence of an offender unless ordered otherwise by the sentencing court. The U.S. Supreme Court summed up:
In a series of decisions this Court has held that, even though the governmental purpose be legitimate and substantial, that purpose cannot be pursued by means that broadly stifle fundamental personal liberties when the end can be more narrowly achieved. The breadth of legislative abridgment must be viewed in the light of less drastic means for achieving the same basic purpose.
11. But when an inmate is cruelly restricted in a manner which supports no such relevant purpose, the restriction becomes unreasonable and arbitrary, and unconstitutionally is the consequence. Traumatic futility is obnoxious to pragmatic legality. Social defence is the raison d''etre of the penal code and bears upon judicial control over prison administration. If a whole atmosphere of constant fear of violence frequent torture and denial of opportunity to improve oneself is created or if medical facilities and basic elements of care and comfort necessary to sustain life are refused then also the humane jurisdiction of the court will become operational based on Article 19. Other forms of brutal unreasonableness and anti-rehabilitative attitude violative of constitutionality may be thought of in a penal system, but we wish to lay down only a broad guideline that where policies, with a ''Zoological touch'', which do not serve valid penal objectives are pursued in penitentiaries so as to inflict conditions so unreasonable as to frustrate the ability of inmates to engage in rehabilitation, the court is not helpless. However, a prison system may make rational distinctions in making assignments to inmates of vocational, educational and work opportunities available but it is constitutionally impermissible to do so without a functional classification system. The mere fact that a prisoner is poor or rich, high-born or ill bred, is certainly irrational as a differential in a ''secular socialist republic''. Since the petitioner charges the jail staff with barbaric and inhuman treatment in prison we are called upon to delineate the broad boundaries of judicial jurisdiction vis-a-vis prison administration and prisoner''s rights.
16. The court must not rush in where the jailor fears to tread, while the country may not make the prison boss the sole sadistic arbiter of incarcerated humans, the community may be in no mood to hand over central prisons to be run by courts. Each instrumentality must function within its province. We have no hesitation to hold that while Sobraj has done litigative service for prison reform, he has signally failed to substantiate any legal injury. We, therefore, dismiss the writ petition, making it clear that strictly speaking the petitioner being a foreigner cannot claim rights under Article 19, but we have discussed at some length the import of Articles 14, 19 and 21 because they are interlaced and in any case apply to Indian citizens.
17. In the case of Rama Murthy v. State of Karnataka (supra), the Apex Court observed that prison system afflicted by nine major problems viz. overcrowding, delay in trial, torture and ill-treatment, neglect of health and hygiene, insubstantial food and inadequate clothing, prison vices, deficiency in communication, streamlining of jail visits and management of open-air prisons. Recommendation of Mulla Committee made in Chapter 29 on the subject of giving proper medical facilities and maintaining appropriate hygienic conditions should be considered and needed steps should be taken. The Apex Court on neglect of health and hygiene held thus:-
37. The Mulla Committee has dealt with this aspect in Chapters 6 and 7 of its report, a perusal of which shows the pathetic position in which most of the jails are placed insofar as hygienic conditions are concerned, most of them also lack proper facilities for treatment of prisoners. The recommendations of the committee in this regard are to be found in Chapter 29. We have nothing useful to add except pointing out that society has an obligation towards prisoners'' health for two reasons. First, the prisoners do not enjoy the access to medical expertise that free citizens have. Their incarceration places limitations on such access; no physician of choice, no second opinions, and few if any specialists. Secondly, because of the conditions of their incarceration, inmates are exposed to more health hazards than free citizens. Prisoners therefore, suffer from a double handicap.
38. In ''American Prison System'' (supra) there is a discussion at pages 411-13 as to whether a prisoner can seek any relief from the Court because of neglect of medical treatment on the ground of violation of their constitutional right. Policy makers may bear this also in mind while deciding about the recommendations of the Mulla Committee Report, which they would so do within six months from today.
18. In
18. Unfortunately, the Indian Penal code still lingers in the somewhat compartmentalised system of punishment viz. imprisonment, simple or rigorous, fine and, of course, capital sentence. There is a wide range of choice and flexible treatment which must be available with the judge if he is to fulfil his tryst with curing the criminal in a hospital setting. Maybe in an appropriate case actual hospital treatment may have to be prescribed as part of the sentence. In another case, liberal parole may have to be suggested and, yet in a third category, engaging in certain types of occupation or even going through meditational drills or other courses may be part of the sentencing prescription. The perspective having changed, the legal strategies and judicial resources, in their variety, also have to change. Rule of thumb sentences of rigorous imprisonment or other are too insensitive to the highly delicate and subtle operation expected of a sentencing judge. Release on probation, conditional sentences, visits to healing centers, are all on the cards. We do not wish to be exhaustive. Indeed, we cannot be.
19. Sentencing justice is a facet of social justice, even as redemption of a crime-doer is an aspect of restoration of a whole personality. Till the new Code recognised statutorily that punishment required considerations beyond the nature of the crime and circumstances surrounding the crime and provided a second stage for bringing in such additional materials, the Indian courts had, by and large, assigned an obsolescent backseat to the sophisticated Judgment on sentencing. Now this judicial skill has to come of age.
20. The sentencing stance of the court has been outlined by us and the next question is what ''hospitalization'' techniques will best serve and sentence, having due regard to his just deserts, blending a feeling for a man behind the crime, defence of society by a deterrent component and a scientific therapeutic attitude at once correctional and realistic. The available resources for achieving these ends within the prison campus also has to be considered in this context. Noticing the scant regard paid by the courts below to the soul of Section 248(2) of the Code and compelled to gather information having sentencing relevancy, we permitted counsel on both sides in the present appeal to file affidavits and other materials to help the Court make a judicious choice of the appropriate ''penal'' treatment. Both sides have filed affidavits which disclose some facts pertinent to the project.
24. We also think that the appellant has slipped into crime for want of moral fibre: If competent Jail visitors could organise for him processes which will instill into him a sense of ethics it may help him become a better man self-expression and self-realisation have a curative effect. Therefore, any sports and games, artistic activity and/or meditational course, may also reform. We strongly recommend that the appellant be given such opportunities by the jail authorities as will'' stimulate his creativity and sensitivity. In this connection we may even refer to proven advantages of kindling creative intelligence and normalising inner imbalance reportedly accomplished by Transcendental Meditation (TM) propagated by Maharshi Mahesh Yogi in many countries in the west. Research projects conducted in various countries bring out that people practising such or like courses change their social behaviour and, reduce their crime-proneness. We do not prescribe anything definite but indicate what the prison doctors may hopefully consider. While it is beyond us to say whether the present facilities inside the Central Prison, Hyderabad, make it feasible for the appellant to enjoy these benefits and thereby improve his inner being, we strongly feel that the humanitarian winds must blow into the prison barricades. More than this is expected in this decade, when jail reforms, from abolition of convict''s costume and conscript labour to restoration of basic companionship and atmosphere of self-respect and fraternal touch, are on the urgent agenda of the nation. Our prisons should be correctional houses, not cruel iron aching the soul.
25. We have given thought to another humanising strategy, viz., a guarded parole release every three months for at least a week, punctuating the total prison term. We direct the State Government to extend this parole facility to the appellant, Jail Rules permitting and the appellant submitting to conditions of discipline and initiation into an uplifting exercise daring the parole interval. We further direct the Advisory Board of the Prison, periodically to check whether the appellant is making progress and the Jail authorities are helping in the process and implementing the prescription hereinabove given. Indeed, the direction of prison reform is not towards dehumanization but dehumanization, not maim and mayhem and vulgar callousness but man-making experiments designed to restore the dignity of the individual and the worth of the human person. This majuscule strategy involves orientation courses for the prison personnel. The State will not hesitate, we expect, to respect the personality in each convict, in the spirit of the Preamble to the Constitution and will not permit the colonial hangover of putting people ''behind the bars'' and then forget about them. This nation cannot-and, if it remembers its incarcerated leaders and freedom fighters-will not but revolutionize the conditions inside that grim little world. We make these persistent observations only to drive home the imperative of Freedom-that its deprivation, by the State, is validated only by a plan to make the sentence more worthy of that birthright. There is a spiritual dimension to the first page of our Constitution which projects into penology. Indian courts may draw inspiration from Patanjali sutra even as they derive punitive patterns from the Penal Code (most of Indian meditational therapy is based on the sutras of Patanjali).
19. In
20. In
21. In Bibhuti Nath Jha v. State of Bihar (supra), where Medical Board recommended that appellant-accused be given treatment in reputed mental hospital in Ranchi though accused was being tried and held in custody in State of Bihar; High Court rejected the prayer for referral of appellant-accused thereto, however, observed that he would be given best treatment available in Bihar. Since specialized treatment facilities for mental disturbed persons were not available in Bihar, the Apex Court directed that appellant-accused be referred to said mental hospital in Ranchi for specialized treatment.
22. In
23. In
24. From the aforesaid discussion, it follows that it cannot be doubted that the prisoners do have the right to obtain medical treatment. However, it is subject to safety. Ultimately, the prisoner has to reintegrate with the society. When State imprisons someone, it has liability for looking after health, necessary medical care or treatment. The necessary medical care, if not better, has to be of reasonably same standard which is expected by a person outside jail. The right as to medical treatment during illness is available to a prisoner. It is State''s obligation to look after the mental health of prisoners. Prisoners cannot be deprived of health services as that would be violative of protection conferred under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. In case such a facility is illegally deprived of, it can be enforced by judicial intervention. However at the same time, a prisoner cannot dictate his choice that he would obtain treatment in a particular hospital. The decision of State has to be based on overall consideration of nature of ailment and the kind of medical intervention required and its availability. It cannot depend upon the status of a prisoner or his choice but prime consideration has to be adequate effective treatment which is necessary to keep the soul intact with body.
25. The SMS Hospital, Jaipur is renowned and highly reputed hospital in Rajasthan. The doctors and staff attached to the Hospital are well qualified and trained in medical field. In the hospital, treatment and surgery of almost all kinds of diseases are available through modern equipments and machines with skilled and experienced doctors. It is well equipped with all high tech, ultra modern facilities. It is aptly befitted to provide state-of -art health care. It provides the quality treatment to the patients with well experienced and professional team of doctors. The hospital is also well equipped with all the life saving equipment. The kind of ailment with which petitioner is suffering can be effectively treated in SMS Hospital. Thus, the submission raised that he should be permitted to obtain treatment in Hospital of his own choice cannot be accepted. The decision taken by respondent authority is commensurate to the nature of ailment. We find no ground to interfere. The appeal is accordingly disposed of.
