In the case of State of Punjab v.

Mohinder Singh Chawla it has also been held that the right to
health is integral to the right to life and the government has a constitutional obligation to
provide health facilities.
In the case of People’s Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India (1997). “The Supreme Court
held that Article 21 of the Constitution of India in relation to human rights has to be interpreted
in conformity with international law”. Therefore, Article 25(1) of the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights guarantees the right to a standard of living adequate for health and well-being.

The constitution of India has provided for improving the conditions of healthcare under the
Right to Health framework of article 21. The obligation upon the state arises from looking the
constitutional provisions as specified under articles 39 (e) (f), 47 and 48 A in Part IV of the
Constitution of India. The state has to direct its policy towards securing that health and strength
of workers, men and women, and the tender age of children are not abused and that citizens are
not forced by economic necessity to enter avocations unsuited to their age or strength [Article
39 (e)] and that children are given opportunities and facilities to develop in a healthy manner
and in conditions of freedom and dignity and that childhood and youth are protected against
exploitation and against moral and maternal abandonment [Article 39 (f)]. Art 47 talks about
Duty of the State to raise the level of nutrition and the standard of living and to improve public
health. All these DPSPs create compelling arguments for the state to look into the matter of
health care.
In the case of Valsamma Paul v. Cochin University it was said that “The concept of equality
and equal protection of law guaranteed by Article 14 of the Constitution in its proper spectrum
encompasses social and economic justice in a political democracy as its species to eliminate
inequalities in status and to provide facilities and opportunities among the individual and
groups of people to secure adequate means of livelihood which is the foundation for stability
of political democracy.” Therefore, by not providing for health facilities for all people of a
similar class who are being affected the state would violate its duty to provide adequate
facilities to help people secure their livelihood. The state shall provide facilities and
opportunities to every citizen to make the fundamental rights meaningful and the life of every
citizen worth living and at its best, with the dignity of person and fraternity, lest they remain
empty vessels and teasing illusions to majority population.
As stated earlier, for a small part of the working population right to healthcare through the
social security/social insurance route exists. This means that such security can be made
available to the general population too. But since among the under privileged it is only a few
who would be able to avail this privilege is also a sign of discrimination and inequity that
violates not only the non-discrimination principle of international law, but it also violates
Article 14 of the Constitution, Right to Equality, under the chapter of Fundamental Rights.
It was held in the case of Mohd. Ahmed (Minor) vs Union Of India & Ors. “Just because
someone is poor, the State cannot allow him to die. In fact, Government is bound to ensure that
poor and vulnerable sections of society have access to treatment for rare and chronic diseases,
after all, health is not a luxury and should not be the sole possession of a privileged few”.
Hence, when the state fails to provide for proper medical assistance it leads to violation of
article 14.