Published on: October 19, 2023 at 12:13 IST
Court: Supreme Court of India
Citation: Parmanand Katara v. Union of India (1989)
Honourable Supreme Court of India has held that there can be no second opinion that preservation of human life is of paramount importance. It is held that once life is lost, the status quo ante cannot be restored as resurrection is beyond the capacity of man. It is the obligation of State to preserve life of the patient whether he be an innocent person or be a criminal who is in Jail.
8. Article 21 of the Constitution casts the obligation on the State to preserve life. The provision as explained by this Court in scores of decisions has emphasised and reiterated with gradually increasing emphasis that position. A doctor at the government hospital positioned to meet this State obligation is, therefore, duty bound to extend medical assistance for preserving life. Every doctor whether at a government hospital or otherwise has the professional obligation to extend his services with due expertise for protecting life. No law or State action can intervene to avoid/delay the discharge of the paramount obligation cast upon members of the medical profession.
The obligation being total, absolute and paramount, laws of procedure whether in statutes or otherwise which would interfere with the discharge of this obligation cannot be sustained and must, therefore, give way. On this basis, we have not issued notices to the States and Union territories for affording them an opportunity of being heard before we accepted the statement made in the affidavit of the Union of India that there is no impediment in the law.
The matter is extremely urgent and in our view, brooks no delay to remind every doctor of his total obligation and assure him of the position that he does not contravene the law of the land by proceeding to treat the injured victim on his appearance before him either by himself or being carried by others.
We must make it clear that zonal regulations and classifications cannot also operate as fetters in the process of discharge of the obligation and irrespective of the fact whether under instructions or rules the victim has to be sent elsewhere or how the police shall be contacted, the guideline indicated in the 1985 decision of the Committee, as extracted above [ In para 3] , is to become operative. We order accordingly.
Drafted By Abhijit Mishra