This paper examines the evolution of the right to health in India's legal system, situating it within constitutional law, judicial interpretation, and policy developments. Although the Indian Constitution does not expressly confer a fundamental right to health, Article 21's guarantee of life and liberty has been expansively interpreted to include health and medical care. Directive Principles such as Article 47 ('Duty of the State to improve public health') and Articles 39(e) and 42 further underline the State's obligation towards citizens' health. Landmark Supreme Court cases — from Rakesh Chandra Narayan v. State of Bihar (1988) and Paschim Banga Khet Mazdoor Samity v. State of WB (1996) to Consumer Education & Research Centre v. UOI (1995) — have read Article 21 to embrace healthcare, mandating emergency medical services and safe working conditions. Recent judgments, notably Sukdeb Saha v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2025), have explicitly declared mental health a fundamental right under Article 21. On the policy front, frameworks like the National Health Policy (2017) and insurance schemes (e.g., Ayushman Bharat) seek to advance universal coverage. Nevertheless, implementation lags: high out-of-pocket spending (~47% of health costs) and low public health investment hinder realization of health rights. This paper reviews literature and case law, analyses the constitutional basis and state duties, evaluates judicial mandates and health policies, and identifies persisting challenges. It concludes that recognizing health within constitutional life-rights is necessary but not sufficient: enforceable legislation, adequate resources, and accountability mechanisms are needed to translate 'rights on paper' into living realities.
M. et al. (Mon,) studied this question.