Delhi High Court: A petition was filed by the petitioner a detainee in Tihar Jail accused of money laundering, seeking urgent medical assistance due to a serious health condition despite orders passed by the Delhi High Court directing the jail authorities and the respondent department to facilitate medical treatment at a private hospital, the directions were not complied with. Chandra Dhari Singh, J., directed the Jail Superintendent of the jail concerned to be present before the Court on the next date of hearing and explain the willful non-compliance with the orders and the reasons as to why this Court shall not proceed with the contempt proceedings against the officer concerned.
An another bail application was filed under Section of the (BNSS) seeking interim medical bail for treatment at private hospital of the applicant’s choice, purely on humanitarian and compassionate grounds and direct the jail authorities to expeditiously provide the medical records of the applicant for consultation purpose. Chandra Dhari Singh, J., granted interim medical bail to the applicant for ten days from the date of release on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs 1,00,000 with two solvent sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Jail Superintendent/Court subject to certain conditions.
On 18-10-2024, Delhi High Court passed a direction requiring the jail authorities and the respondent department to ensure the petitioner received necessary medical attention, including treatment at a private hospital if required. Despite this, the petitioner alleged non-compliance, leading the Court to issue additional directives on 13-11-2024. These included requiring affidavits from the Jail Superintendent and a senior official from the respondent department explaining the failure to act. Due to continued neglect and alleged willful disobedience by the authorities ultimately led the petitioner to file this petition seeking immediate medical care and accountability for non-compliance with court orders.
Counsel for petitioner contended that the jail authorities’ conduct amounted to willful disobedience of the court’s orders. The affidavits and reports filed by the respondents were termed superficial and inadequate, failing to justify the continued delay in providing medical treatment. The petitioner emphasized that the lack of action had severely impacted his health, underscoring the inadequacy of the medical facilities within the jail premises.
In response, the respondent department and the jail authorities argued that they had acted in good faith and attempted compliance with the court’s orders. They pointed to logistical challenges, communication gaps, and the procedural delays in referring the petitioner to a private hospital. The department also presented a report from a medical board, which concluded that the petitioner was receiving adequate treatment and did not require private hospitalization. However, the respondents tendered an apology for any inadvertent lapses and denied any intentional defiance of court orders.
The Court noted with concern the repeated failure of the jail authorities and the respondent department to comply with its directions, terming it a serious breach of the petitioner’s fundamental rights. The affidavits and reports filed by the authorities were scrutinized, and the Court observed inconsistencies in their explanations. It was evident that the petitioner’s medical needs had been neglected, and the reliance on the medical board’s report was found to be a belated and inadequate attempt to justify non-compliance.
The Court highlighted that the petitioner’s health condition warranted urgent attention, and the casual approach of the authorities in handling the matter reflected poorly on their responsibilities. Furthermore, the Court held that the right to health and medical treatment is an intrinsic part of the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution, even for individuals accused of crimes. The authorities’ actions, or lack thereof, were deemed to have violated these rights.
The Court also expressed its disapproval of the delays caused by procedural lapses and poor coordination between the jail and the respondent department. It emphasized that judicial directions must be complied with in letter and spirit, failing which the integrity of the justice delivery system is undermined.
The Court condemned the non-compliance with its previous orders, declaring the conduct of the jail authorities and the respondent department as unacceptable. While taking note of the affidavits filed, the Court found that the explanations offered did not justify the delay in providing medical treatment to the petitioner.
The Court directed the Jail Superintendent of Tihar Jail to personally appear before it on the next date of hearing and explain why contempt proceedings should not be initiated for willful disobedience of the Court’s orders.
[Aditya Krishna v. Directorate of Enforcement, BAIL APPLN. 3464/2024, decided on 19-11-2024]
Judgment by: Justice Chandra Dhari Singh
Advocates who appeared in this case:
Mr. Siddharth Aggarwal, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Tanya Agarwal and Ms. Arshiya Ghosh, Advocates for petitioner
Mr. Manish Jain, Special Counsel for Ed alongwith Mr. Sougata Ganguly, Mr. Snehal Sharda and Mr. Gulnaz Khan, Advocates
The post appeared first on .