This article examines how Indian courts have used dignity jurisprudence to shape healthcare rights adjudication over four decades, comparing it to practices in South Africa, Colombia, and Brazil.
Authors
Sushant Chandra, Adjunct Faculty, Jindal Global Law School, Allahabad High Court, Sonipat, India
Shireen Moti, Associate Professor, Jindal Global Law School, O.P. Jindal Global University, Sonipat, Haryana, India
Summary
The Indian experience on the adjudication of socio-economic rights is an unpredictable area. The epistemological framework of the liberty clause (Article 21) has been employed by the courts in advancing an interpretive theory based on dignity jurisprudence. Comparative literature demonstrates that a theory on socio-economic rights adjudication, requires an interplay of budget and the principle of substantive equality.
This article explores how the dignity jurisprudence has been employed by Indian courts in weaving a theory on healthcare rights adjudication and critiquing it in light of comparative practices. This article evaluates all the major judgments given by the Supreme Court and High Courts on the right to healthcare over the course of four decades (1980-2020) in understanding the meaning attributed to dignity.
Part I of this article introduces socio-economic rights generally and sets their theoretical foundations; reflecting on their application by domestic courts in India. Part II of this article makes a comparison between the jurisdictions of South Africa, Colombia, and Brazil on how their courts have gone about interpreting healthcare claims, and the role played by the constitutional value of dignity. Part III of this article explores the role of international covenants and the way they have been used in interpreting healthcare rights in India. Part IV of this article evaluates all the landmark judgments delivered by the Indian Supreme Court and some of the High Courts (Delhi and Allahabad) and attempts to unravel philosophical meanings attributed to the constitutional doctrine of dignity. Part V presents the conclusion.
Published in: Indonesian Journal of International and Comparative Law
To read the full article, please click here.
