Read Time: 06 minutes

The Bombay High Court while deliberating on a petition by one Nirmala Kumari Uppuganti, an accused in the Gadchiroli blast case of 2019 has held that "a prisoner does not cease to be a human being, and even when lodged in jail cannot be deprived of the right to life.: The petitioner an under trial prisoner, instituted a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India on grounds of terminal illness, seeking directions to the Superintendent, Byculla District Women Prison, Byculla, to shift her from Byculla Prison to Shanti Avedna Sadan, a hospice care centre, or any other appropriate hospice institute.

The bench of Justice S.S. Shinde and Justice N.J. Jamadar were of the view that the petitioner was at an advanced stage of cancer which is excruciatingly painful; hence, proper hospice care cannot be over-emphasised. Opining that the facilities at Byculla Prison might not be adequate or provide effective cures for the prisoner, the Court said:

“A prisoner, be he a convict or under-trial or a detenu, does not cease to be a human being, and even when lodged in the jail, he is not deprived of his right to life guaranteed to him under Article 21 of the Constitution, which includes the right to obtain medical treatment. A prisoner cannot be deprived of health services as it would violate the guarantee conferred under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.”

The allegation against the petitioner and the co-accused is that they are members of the banned organization, Communist Party of India (Maoist), and killed 15 security personnel and a driver in an explosion carried out by them on May 1, 2019. She is charged by the NIA in a charge-sheet under sections 302, 353, 120B, 121, 121A, 147-149, 427 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, Sections 16, 17, 18, 18B, 20, 38, 39 and 40 of UAPA, and Sections 3, 4 and 5 of Explosive Substances Act.

The petitioner claims that she was diagnosed with Breast Cancer in the month of September 2018 and was undergoing the chemotherapy cycle at the time of her arrest. She stated that over the course of her arraignment, her health condition worsened with the cancer spreading to other organs.

The petitioner alleged that her multiple requests to the Superintendent, Byculla District Women Prison to provide audience to the lawyers of the petitioner and the necessary facilities to manage her pain and suffering of the petitioner were repeatedly denied. She stated that the Byculla District Women Prison is equipped neither with facilities nor personnel competent to take care of her.

While not denying that the petitioner is suffering from a grave form of illness, the respondent replied stating that the authorities are taking requisite care of Uppuganti. They stated that treatment is being provided to her at the Tata Memorial Hospital, which is one of the premier cancer care institutions in India. Therefore, they argued that the prayer to shift the petitioner to a hospice centre is not justifiable. The respondent further said that, apart from the prison staff, the co-inmates of the petitioner are also taking care of the petitioner inside the prison.

After hearing, both sides the Hon’ble High Court ordered in favour of the petitioner.