Introduction
In a noteworthy development, the Supreme Court of India, on July 3, 2024, expressed its dismay over an incident where an accused, detained in Manipur Central Jail, could not be taken for medical examination due to his Kuki community background. The Court has directed the State to facilitate the accused’s medical examination at Gauhati Medical College in Assam.
Background
The case, titled Lunkhongam Haokip versus The State of Manipur and Anr., SLP (Crl) No. 4759/2024, involves an accused suffering from piles, tuberculosis (TB), and severe back pain. Despite his serious medical conditions, inadequate medical facilities at Manipur Central Jail and concerns over law and order due to his community affiliation hindered his access to necessary medical care. The matter was brought to the Supreme Court after the High Court’s decision.
Key Points
- Medical Condition and Lack of Facilities:
- The accused suffers from piles, TB, and severe back pain.
- On November 22, 2023, a medical officer detected tenderness in the lower spine and recommended an X-ray, which was unavailable at Manipur Central Jail.
- The jail authorities’ report did not address his TB or piles.
- High Court’s Ruling:
- The High Court stated that the accused could not be taken out of jail due to potential hazards arising from his Kuki community background amid the current law and order situation.
3.Supreme Court’s Directive:
- The Supreme Court, comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and Ujjal Bhuyan, ordered the State to immediately arrange for the accused’s examination at Gauhati Medical College in Assam.
- Detailed medical reports must be submitted to the Court by July 15, 2024, with all expenses borne by the State.
- Supreme Court’s Observations:
- The Supreme Court noted its concerns about the State’s and High Court’s approach but refrained from making further observations at this time.
- The Bench emphasized that if the medical report reveals serious issues, the Court will take necessary actions.
Legal Provisions
The Supreme Court’s intervention reflects the enforcement of constitutional rights, particularly the right to life and health, which applies to all individuals, including prisoners. The directive underscores the State’s duty to provide adequate medical care without discrimination based on community background.
Impact
This case highlights significant issues concerning healthcare in prisons, the rights of inmates, and the treatment of individuals from marginalized communities. The Supreme Court’s decisive action could prompt improvements in prison healthcare systems and ensure non-discriminatory treatment of all prisoners, regardless of their community affiliations.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s directive in this case exemplifies its commitment to upholding human rights and ensuring the State fulfills its responsibilities. By mandating timely medical examination and addressing potential serious health issues, the Court underscores the importance of justice and well-being for all, irrespective of community background. The case may set a precedent for future reforms in the treatment of marginalized groups within the Indian judicial and penal systems.
Reference
