Fundamental Right To Health & Medical Care Stands Enforced Only With Corresponding Constitutional Obligation On State To Create Medical Facilities: Karnataka HC
The Karnataka High Court took suo-motu cognizance based on a news report titled “Karnataka Short of 16,500 Medical Personnel”.

The Karnataka High Court has emphasised that the Fundamental Right to Health and Medical Care stands enforced only with corresponding Constitutional obligation on part of the State to create medical facilities.
The Court took suo-motu cognizance based on the Bengaluru Edition of ‘The New Indian Express’ in which a news report titled “Karnataka Short of 16,500 Medical Personnel” was published.
A Division Bench of Chief Justice N.V. Anjaria and Justice K.V. Aravind elucidated, “When right to health and right to medical-care is treated as fundamental right, it stands enforced only with corresponding Constitutional obligation on part of the State to create medical facilities. For effective enjoyment of this right, the creation of medical cadre, adequate medical personnel, setting up of infrastructure, availability of medicines in sufficient quantity and without interruption, as also establishment of Primary Health Centres in the rural area, are the concomitants. They become inseparable necessities for enjoyment of right to health and right to medicare.”
The Bench added that at all levels from urban to semi-urban to rural areas of the State, the medical facility, medical infrastructure, and medical personnel have to be made available by the welfare State.
Advocates Shridhar Prabhu (Amicus Curiae) and B. Vachan represented the Petitioner while AGA Niloufer Akbar represented the Respondents.
Case Background
It was highlighted in the news report that there was a shortfall of 454 Primary Health Centres in the State and that the rural areas have inadequate medical facilities. This report caught the eye of the High Court and hence, it took suo motu cognizance of the same. The news item which was part of the record of the Petition highlighted that there was uneven distribution of medical staff and Primary Health Centres and that there are deficits of medical professionals across 30 districts of the State. It was mentioned that Bengaluru Urban, Belagavi, Mysuru, Tumakuru, Hassan, and Mandya districts have 39.1 percent shortage of the nursing personnel.
It also reflected that there was shortage of Primary Health Centres to the extent of 245 urban and 209 rural centres leading to shortfall of total 454 centres. It highlighted that 1,60,000 beds were required to be provided with health cover under the Ayushman Bharat - National Health Protection Mission. The news item stated that the citizens have to travel long distances to avail the basic medical facilities and healthcare needs. It was quoted from the news report in the Petition that there was shortage of 723 MBBS doctors, 7,492 nurses, 1,517 lab technicians, 1,512 pharmacists, 1,752 attendants, and 3,253 Group 'D' employees which constitute different categories of medical staff.
Court’s Observations
The High Court in the above context of the case, observed, “It is expected that the respondent State Government and the Department of Health and Family Welfare remains attentive and active in catering to the needs of the medical facilities in the State and especially in the rural areas to ensure that medical infrastructure is widely available and the medical facilities as well as medical treatment reach the door steps of the rural inhabitants. Extending continuous by the medical facilities and medical treatment by creating and setting up necessary infrastructure in that regard spread over the State in the cities, towns and rural areas, becomes a primary responsibility and a constitutional obligation of a Welfare State. The medical facility and its effective availability have also to be continuously monitored.”
Furthermore, the Court noted that the whole underlying purpose for initiating the suo motu Public Interest Litigation (PIL) was to effectuate the fundamental right to health and to orient and activate the State authorities in-charge of the health care to achieve the welfare-purpose.
The Court, therefore, issued the following directions –
(i) The Department of Health and Family Welfare, State of Karnataka, shall constitute a three member Committee headed by the Secretary, Department of Health, to continuously oversee and implement the mechanism to ensure the providence of medical facility and medical infrastructure including the medical and para-medical personnel at all levels-City, District and Rural.
(ii) The Committee as above shall every six months collect and assess the relevant details from deterrent Districts about the number of vacancies of medical staff in different categories, the need for upgrading or further extending the medical infrastructure and medical facilities including medicines to the various Government Hospitals and Primary Health Centres run by the Government.
(iii) The Committee shall gather the information about the medical staff vacancies in the Government Hospitals and Primary Health Centres and take steps for filling up the vacant posts. This exercise shall be undertaken every six months.
(iv) The Committees at the District level for the above purposes, shall be constituted under the headship of Collector/Deputy Commissioner which shall collect the details relating to the medical staff vacancies, medical infrastructure and medical facilities at district and taluka levels to provide such details to the Committee contemplated in (i) above, every six months and shall function in aid and in coordination.
(v) The State Government shall periodically and preferably every six months undertake the survey of the Primary Health Centres in the rural areas of the State for the purpose of upgradation of such centres in terms of medical facilities to be catered by them and also decide about establishing additional Primary Health Centres on need basis in the villages.
(vi) The Health and Family Welfare Department shall evolve and set up a mechanism to see that there is proper co-ordination and supervision in implementing different Health Schemes of the Central Government and the State Government, as also the health-related strategies.
(vii) The budgeting provision for the purpose shall be properly and adequately made and there shall be ensured purpose-serving spending of the budgetary allocations.
Accordingly, the High Court disposed of the Petition.
Cause Title- The Registrar General v. Union of India & Anr.
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocates Shridhar Prabhu (Amicus Curiae) and B. Vachan.
Respondents: AGA Niloufer Akbar, CGC Nayana Tara B.G., and Advocate Vidya Pai.