Right To Medical Treatment Part Of Art. 21: Chhattisgarh HC Orders Decision On Parole Plea In 10 Days

The Chhattisgarh High Court recently held that authorities cannot keep a prisoner’s parole application pending indefinitely, particularly when it is based on serious medical grounds.

The Court observed that while parole is not an absolute right, authorities are under a statutory obligation to consider and decide such applications within a reasonable time.

It emphasised that the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution includes the right to timely and adequate medical treatment, and administrative inaction in matters affecting health and life cannot be countenanced.

A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal disposed of a writ petition filed by a convicted prisoner seeking parole for medical treatment and directed the competent authority to consider and decide his pending application within ten days.

The Court clarified that it was not expressing any opinion on the merits of the request for parole but held that the authorities must pass a reasoned and speaking order on the application in accordance with law within the stipulated time.

The petition was filed by a 68 year old prisoner who is currently serving his sentence and approached the High Court through his son seeking urgent intervention.

According to the plea, the petitioner is suffering from a serious medical condition, gangrene, and had earlier been admitted to Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Memorial Hospital for treatment.

Medical records placed before the Court indicated that one of his toes had already been amputated and doctors had warned that the infection had spread further, creating a possibility that his legs might also require amputation.

The petitioner submitted that due to the deterioration in his health and apprehension regarding the course of treatment being provided at the government hospital, he wished to undergo treatment at a private hospital of his choice at his own expense.

In this regard, he had applied for grant of parole under the Chhattisgarh Prisoner’s Leave Rules, 1989, seeking release for a period of 90 days so that he could obtain proper medical treatment.

It was further stated that the jail authorities had forwarded his application for parole to the District Magistrate, who is the competent authority under the applicable prison rules to decide such requests.

However, despite the urgency of the medical situation, no decision had been taken on the application and the matter remained pending.

The petitioner argued that the continued inaction of the authorities amounted to arbitrary administrative conduct and violated his fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.

It was submitted that although his conviction had attained finality and he was serving the modified sentence of four years as affirmed by the High Court and the dismissal of the Special Leave Petition by the Supreme Court, his constitutional right to life included access to proper medical treatment.

The plea emphasised that the risk of further amputation due to gangrene required urgent medical attention and any delay in decision-making could have severe consequences for his health.

On the other hand, the State opposed the petition and argued that parole is not a matter of right and must be granted only in accordance with statutory provisions and administrative satisfaction. The State contended that the petitioner’s application was under consideration and there had been no deliberate inaction or arbitrariness on the part of the authorities.

It was further submitted that the State remained committed to ensuring necessary medical care to the prisoner within the prison framework and therefore no violation of constitutional rights had been made out.

The Court examined the provisions of the Chhattisgarh Prisoner’s Leave Rules, 1989 governing the grant of parole and noted that the rules prescribe conditions for grant of leave as well as the procedure to be followed by the competent authority.

The Court observed that the District Magistrate is responsible for deciding such applications after conducting necessary inquiries and assessing whether release on leave would be detrimental to public interest.

At the same time, the Court reiterated that the right to life under Article 21 encompasses the right to adequate medical care and that prisoners, despite being in custody, are entitled to humane treatment and timely medical attention.

The Bench also referred to the Supreme Court’s decision in Shor v. State of Uttar Pradesh, where the top court had emphasised that denial of parole cannot be justified merely by citing the seriousness of the offence without considering relevant statutory factors.

After considering the medical documents and the circumstances of the case, the Court found that the petitioner was indeed suffering from a serious medical condition requiring urgent attention.

The Court noted that he had already undergone amputation of a toe and that medical records indicated a risk of further amputation if the infection continued to spread.

In such circumstances, the Court held that keeping the prisoner’s parole application pending without any decision was unacceptable, particularly when the matter involved serious health concerns.

The Bench observed that although parole cannot be claimed as a matter of right, the competent authority is nonetheless required to decide such applications within a reasonable timeframe.

The Court therefore disposed of the writ petition with a direction to the competent authority to consider and decide the petitioner’s pending application for parole or leave strictly in accordance with law.

The authority was directed to pass a reasoned and speaking order within ten days from the date of receipt of the High Court’s order.

Case Title: Dheluram v. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors.

Bench: Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal

Date of Judgment: 03.03.2025