The Constitution's Framers intended for the Right to Health to be included in the DPSP, which can be found in both Article 47 and Article 39. The Constitution of India specifies under Articles 38, 39(e), (f), 42, 47, and 48A that it is the State's duty to create and uphold environments that are healthy for its citizens.

Judiciary decisions made throughout the years have raised access to health care to the level of a fundamental human right. Realizing that health is central to the Indian Constitution and the basic right to life, the Court has started to address health issues for Indian residents. As stated in Article 47 of the section titled "Directive Principles," "the state shall view the increasing of the level of nutrition and the standard of living of its people and the enhancement of public health as among its primary tasks." Considering that directive principles are not binding under law; the commitment has not been implemented.

The Supreme Court of India said unequivocally that "the right to health is an inherent fact of meaningful right to life" in the case of Consumer Education and Research Centre v. Union of India. In this paper, we will attempt to investigate the role that states and the centre played in the provision of healthcare during the Coronavirus pandemic, as well as the scope of the obligation that had been under Article 47 along the way.

The Court determined that access to healthcare is guaranteed by Article 21. As a result of this realization, the legal framework of public interest litigation has developed to deal with health concerns. Next, the Court found that the government must provide its inhabitants a minimum level of safety in their homes and places of employment, as well as access to essential curative and preventative health care.

One of the most unusual responses to the growing power of Indian citizens is the court's acceptance of social rights as legally binding promises. The Court ruled that a person's basic rights, like as the right to life, are meaningless without the wherewithal to really live a life worth living.

It was from this realisation that the notion of the state providing citizens with the basic social and economic offerings they need to take responsibility for and improve their social surroundings emerged. India's right to health has been significantly affected by the substantive recognition that people have the right to live with dignity and that states have the obligation to create the proper social circumstances.

Research Objectives

• To determine the way in which the State can guarantee the Right to Health.
• To comprehend how the right to health would be implemented and how the right to food is an integral part of the right to health.
• To analyze critically the role performed by the Supreme Court of India in the implementation of DPSP, with a particular focus on the enforcement of Article 47.

Hypothesis
Although the Supreme Court has been instrumental in defining the law of Right to Health in the Indian context, the State must be more effective and proactive in carrying out Directive Principles of State Policy.

Research Methodology
The researcher employed the doctrinal method of research for the aim of this study. Legal precedents and statutory texts have been used as primary sources. Also studied were secondary materials, such as textbooks and articles by a variety of writers.

Literature Review:
The goals of this research paper have been accomplished by the use of a wide range of primary and secondary materials consulted by the researcher. The current paper draws from a wide range of resources, such as scholarly books and journals, as well as online resources like encyclopedias and wikis. In order to have a grasp on the fundamentals of DPSP and its many components, the study first examined "MP Jain's Indian Constitution Law"1.

To better comprehend the idea of jurisprudence of Right to Health, the researcher referred to "Illuminating the Possible in the Developing World: Guaranteeing the Human Right to Health in India"2 by Sheetla B. Shah. This review argues that recognizing the social right to health is an important step toward giving people in the developing world more agency over their own lives and communities.

"Right to Health"3 by Shikhar Srinivastava has been referred to understand the role of DPSP in enforceability of right to health. "Right to Health Protection Essays and Articles"4 by Tom H. Christoffel provides deep insights into the state's role into the protection of citizens' right to health.

"Position of Right to Health in India"5 by Bhanu Pratap Singh critically analysis the present position of right to health in India. "Public Health and Right to Health in India: Evaluation of Gap between Policy and Implementation"6 by SP Srivastava touches upon the lacunae occurring in the effective implementation of right to health.

Tentative Chapterisation

• Chapter i: Right To Health: A Directive Principle And Its Evolution As A Fundamental Right. The chapter's focus is on the right to health as a DPSP. Moreover, it will detail its development as interpreted in light of numerous rulings handed down by the Indian judiciary.
   
• Chapter ii: Feasibility Of The Right To Health: Proportionality Test. In light of the global crisis posed by the Coronavirus pandemic, this chapter will explore the feasibility of recognizing the Right to Health as a fundamental right, the extent to which it may be guaranteed, and the test of proportionality for the implementation of this right.
• Chapter iii: Right To Health: Challenges And Path Ahead. Possible obstacles to establishing this right as a fundamental right would be investigated. The plan would also analyses how the national govt and individual states implement the plan.
• Chapter iv: Conclusion. This concluding chapter sums up the study's results and emphasises its main recommendations. In this part, we will assess the validity of the proposed theory. The study also includes the researcher's suggestions for accomplishing the aims of Article 47.

Chapter I
Introduction

Right To Health: A Directive Principle And Its Evolution As A Fundamental Right

Judicial Response in Respect of the Right to Health

The framers of the Constitution included Part IV, which lays out the Directive Principles that will be used to guide state policy, for two reasons: (i) To ensure that the DPSPs have a say in the part of state policy determined, and (ii) to ensure that we have a clear understanding of the scope of the rights guaranteed to us in Part III.7

Intriguing and compelling public interest litigation was brought to light by the Indian judiciary, which played a significant role (PIL). The judiciary is given the opportunity to investigate the social, economic, and environmental situations of the impoverished, the oppressed, and those in other precarious positions through PIL.

The Supreme Court, in accordance with Article 32 of the Constitution, has worked with the government to implement safeguards to ensure the public's safety and defend the inalienable right to life and freedom.8

In Parmanand Katara v. Union 9 of India was addressed access to curative health care. A severely injured man needed emergency care at a nearby hospital. Doctors declined to offer emergency care and transferred the victim to a hospital 20 kilometers away. The man died end route to another hospital. The Court was asked if wounded persons had a fundamental right to emergency medical care under Article 21.

Article 21 of the Constitution requires the state to protect life. The Court ruled that doctors must treat the sick to save life. The Court ordered the state to eliminate legal barriers to doctors and hospitals delivering emergency care.

These foundational concepts have served as the basis for the development and eventual codification in legislation and judicial rulings of many of the rights we hold dearest. Article 45 of the Constitution guaranteed that all citizens would have access to education within ten years of the Constitution's ratification, and the eighty-sixth amendment added Article 21-A of the Constitution, which mandated that all children between the ages of six and fourteen receive a free public education. While the amendment to the constitution is significant, it is also crucial to recall that the Right to Education has previously been protected by a number of precedent court decisions, such as Unni Krishnan v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Mohini Jain v. State of Karnataka10.

The focus of this chapter is on the development of these ideas into rights that may be enforced against the government, as the Articles themselves are just principles of guiding and not rights.

While Article 21 of the Indian Constitution guarantees the "right to life," it is increasingly understood that the "right to health" is a subset of that right. The court in Francis Coralie Mullin vs. The Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi11 reaffirmed that the right to life is more than just the right to physical survival; it also means the right to a dignified existence, which requires the availability of basic necessities like clean water, proper healthcare, and a secure place to earn a living.

The court in Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India12 acknowledged that the directive principles only had persuasive power, but it found that Article 21 should be used to analyses matters such as healthcare rather than the principles themselves.

The highest court in the land ruled in the case of Paschim Banga Khet Mazdoorsamity vs. State of West Bengal and Anr13 that denying someone medical attention when they need it is a violation of their right to life under Article 21. As a direct result of this ruling, the Right to Health is now recognized as an integral part of the Right to Life, and the government is obligated to guarantee that all of its healthcare facilities are adequately staffed and equipped to deal with any medical emergency that may arise.

Employers have an obligation to ensure their workers' health and safety, both during and after employment, according to a decision by India's highest court in Consumer Education and Research Centre v. Union of India.14 This is because such protection is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.

Since Article 47 of the Constitution guaranteed the right to food, there has been significant development in the law, particularly with relation to legislative actions protecting this right. The Supreme Court of India held in Centre for Public Interest Litigation vs. Union of India & Ors.15 that providing the public with nutritious meals is necessary in order to uphold the right to a minimum wage.

The highest court in India has taken the lead in protecting the right of all Indians to eat nutritious meals. For the millions of undernourished individuals in India, the Supreme Court's landmark decision in the public interest lawsuit Petition, People's Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India & Others (PUCL) has ensured that they would get at least the minimal amount of food necessary to sustain life.

As a result of the Supreme Court's decision, feeding programs are now rights guaranteed by the Constitution, and it is clear which authorities are responsible for failing to fulfill the requirements of the legislation.

In light of Article 47 and the PUCL ruling, the National Food Security Act of 2013 was created to guarantee that all citizens may have healthy food. The National Food Security Act was passed by Congress to make sure everyone has access to enough nutritious food at a price they can afford so they may live healthy and dignified lives."16

It protects Indian children, women, and men from hunger and food insecurity. Social, economic, and political factors pushed it to become a policy. This Act aims to establish new social service delivery requirements, including openness and accountability. In addition, it aims to ensure appropriate nutrition, a component of the right to life under Article 21. (which has been read by the Supreme Court as the right to live with dignity). This is a basic right.17

Chapter ii

Feasibility Of Right To Health: Test Of Proportionality

Some provisions of the Right to health and a healthy living environment have been made enforceable by the judiciary via a series of distinct rulings. The government has also taken a number of other measures, such as rolling out the Ayushman Bharat programme, a universal health care programme that provides coverage to more than 10 crore people.

Despite these efforts, no constitutional amendments have been introduced to recognise the right to health care on par with the right to education. In this chapter, we will look into the feasibility of enshrining the Right to Health in the Constitution, the extent to which it may be guaranteed, and the application of the proportionality test to decide whether or not this right should be implemented, with a focus on the Coronavirus epidemic.

The first step toward comprehending the various dimensions of the concept of the "right to health" is to understand how a state may ensure the right to health for its citizens. In order to assure this, it is required to give access to all people, access at an appropriate standard, and access that does not place an undue strain on users.

Second, there should be a fair allocation of the resources required to provide access, a fair distribution of the responsibilities associated with limiting resources, and a constant effort to find methods to make the system fairer for everybody involved. Finally, medical professionals should be educated on how to provide high- quality care while keeping costs down, as well as how to empathize with their patients and hold themselves accountable for their actions.

Finally, special consideration should be given to the needs of the most vulnerable members of society, such as the young, the old, the physically disadvantaged, and women.18 The article focuses solely on the constitutional and legal limitations on the provision of access to health as a constitutionally guaranteed right, and hence does not analyses the structural and logistical restrictions that are present in India due to a lack of resources.

As we move forward, it is very necessary to think about the principles of openness and solidarity in light of the right to health, which may be considered from a constitutional perspective.

Solidarity19
Solidarity is fundamental to ideas of fairness and of equality for all. By working together, we can ensure that all people, regardless of income or location, have equal access to quality public health care. The poorest citizens of India are facing the brunt of the disease because they lack access to medical care and other essentials, exacerbating the country's already severe inequalities.

All people, regardless of race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, religion, or native language, must be afforded equal treatment and have their fundamental rights guaranteed by the state in order to demonstrate solidarity. If the country was more united, the federal government would take charge of finding solutions to issues that affect many states.

Transparancy 20
Compliance with the principle of openness is essential to good governance and maintaining public trust in the government. If the public is going to be able to keep tabs on how its government and the organisations it funds are performing, then information has to be publicly available, easily accessible, and widely disseminated. The qualities of accountability and trustworthiness enhance the value of transparency.

Right to health and healthcare framework transparency helps rein the rising costs of healthcare and pharmaceuticals, keeps public institutions functioning smoothly, and maintains public trust. Big data analytics are being used to track patients and find old friends through applications like Aarogya Setu, but this practice needs to be in line with the idea of personal data security, and any usage or distribution should be done with the prior approval of the people in a transparent manner. Allegations of rampant data fabrication have undermined public trust in the official count of COVID19 cases in India.

Proportionality Test 21
In K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India,22 the Supreme Court of India established the test of proportionality and decided that if any two rights are at odds with one another, the least invasive method must be applied to further one right. This ruling was made while the Court was affirming the Right to Privacy as a Fundamental Right under Article 21.

Many people questioned whether or not the test of proportionality in the case of Right to health could be used in multiple instances during the coronavirus pandemic, when there was a heated debate over whether or not the government has the authority to restrict people's movement or track their movement in the name of public health.

In Puttaswamy, the Supreme Court declared that the norm of proportionality must be used wherever the state takes use of individuals' private information or their own freely made decisions. According to the court's ruling, any such action must be reasonable, and the least restrictive alternative must be chosen. The Supreme Court decided that everyone has an inherent right to privacy and that it is crucial for an individual to have discretion over what data is disclosed to the state.

In contravention of the foregoing premise, the Minister of Health is employing an unconstitutional means to keep tabs on persons who have been quarantined. Since a "press release" was used to announce the decision, it appears that the highest-ranking officials in the Ministry were responsible for making the call.

Permission may have been given under many statutes. There is no unfettered access to personal information by the government, regardless of whether it claims to be acting under the National Disaster Management Act of 2005 or the Epidemic Diseases Act of 1897. That's why it's safe to argue the executive order broke the law.

The decision to release the names of quarantined individuals and to keep track of their personal information was necessary to prevent the spread of the virus, and was thus justifiable. In a number of cases, the Supreme Court has declared that the right to health is a fundamental aspect of the right to life and freedom. The current situation necessitates the state's active protection of this constitutionally protected freedom by means of efforts to raise awareness of the virus, aid those in need medically, and halt the future spread of the disease.

Tracking people who are quarantined is becoming increasingly commonplace, with several nations like Israel, China, Taiwan, and Singapore participating in the initiative. The Israeli government has authorised its security forces to track the movements of its citizens, in particular those who may have been infected with the corona virus.

The Israeli government has restricted the amount of time a person can be monitored to 30 days, and even then, only with their explicit approval and that of their attorneys. Quarantined Singaporeans are obliged to use the smartphone app Trace Together. Trace Together has several mechanisms to protect user privacy, one of which is the anonymization of collected data.23

However, the practice of mandatorily monitoring and tracking individuals in India fails the proportionality test established by the constitution, and the administrations that have adopted such techniques have acted in open violation of the constitutional spirit. Tracking individuals using their phones is neither an inconspicuous nor useful way to keep tabs on them.

Even if we disregard the proportionality criteria, tracking people for the purpose of public health is counterproductive since it stigmatises those who are affected with the illness and, in the long run, contributes to the marginalisation of such people rather than boosting public understanding about corona.

To summarise, when the government makes masks mandatory due to the infectious and lethal nature of the Coronavirus, or when the government imposes lockdown and restricts people's freedom of movement, it is acting in a fair and proportionate manner when compared to the risks posed by the pandemic that endanger public health. Monitoring individuals through their mobile applications and forcing them to use a certain app, on the other hand, fails the proportionality test and has no legal foundation.

In conclusion, the Right to Health must be recognised as important and necessary before it is enshrined as a fundamental right, guaranteeing that all citizens have access to healthcare that is both high-quality and inexpensive. To guarantee the right to health is carried out in line with these principles of solidarity and transparency, we must give equal weight to all rights that may be affected by its implementation.

Chapter III

Right To Health: Challenges And Path Ahead

Should It Be Declared As A Fundamental Right?

In September 2019, the High-Level Group on the Health Sector was founded under the 15th Finance Commission, and they proposed making health care a fundamental right. The report also suggested adding health concerns on the Concurrent List rather than the State List. If the plan to guarantee access to health care for everyone is implemented, more individuals will receive the treatment they require.

However, if health is included to the Concurrent List, a constitutional question arises as to whether or not public health should be centralised under the Indian cooperative federalism model. Included in the State List of the 7th Schedule of the Constitution of India are public health and sanitation, as well as hospitals and dispensaries. This provides constitutional guidance to state governments to develop, adopt, and enforce public health regulations.

The NITI Aayog published a report in 2019 that emphasised the differences in public health systems among Indian states. This disparity can be largely attributed to a lack of available resources and the absence of the requisite technological expertise.24 Although the issue of the states' reliance on federal funding is still important, placing health on the Concurrent List will add needless levels of bureaucracy, red tape, and institutional limitations.

This consolidation would rob states of their constitutional protections and subject state policy decisions to the whims of the federal government. Furthermore, Indian states demand individualised treatment that can't be provided by a standardised method.

Interplay Between Centre And State

The Indian Constitution is centered on cooperative federalism, and it is essential that the federal government and the different states cooperate on a problem as crucial as public health. As the coordinated response to COVID19 has demonstrated, strong skills at the local and district levels are necessary to halt the pandemic's future spread.

Even if successful coordination between states and the centre is vital, the lessons learned from the reaction show that health care must stay on the State List. Thus, it is critical to empower states with more autonomy and funding to improve their own public health systems. For example, despite early setbacks, the spread of Japanese encephalitis was stopped in Uttar Pradesh and Bihar in 2019. Maharashtra and Delhi first invoked The Pandemic Diseases Act of 1897 in response to the ongoing epidemic, before the federal government activated the National Disaster Management Act of 2005 on March 23.25

The Constitution has pleaded with the State to guarantee a basic standard of living through the Directive Principles of State Policy. Numerous precedents demonstrate the state's obligation to finance and administer healthcare for its citizens. India, as a state party to a number of international treaties and conventions, is obligated to enhance and provide at least a certain level of public services, including universal health care.

Existing constitutional safeguards, legal precedents, and international commitments lend strong support to the idea that right to health be declared as a fundamental right in India.

There will be no opportunity for negotiation over costs if health care is guaranteed under the constitution. Similar to the 93rd Amendment, which ensured that all citizens would receive a minimum education, the constitution of India should be modified to ensure that all Indians have access as excellent healthcare.

Lastly, India should recognise health care as a fundamental right. Health regulations are essential to protecting the public's health because they help communities recover faster after disasters like pandemics. Human rights obligations must not be jeopardised in the sake of a rapid response to a crisis. As a result, it is critical that the right to health be implemented in a transparent, equitable, and solidaried manner. For this reason, it is important to strengthen India's cooperative federalism, as the COVID19 issue calls for a decentralized/polycentric response.

In the case Dipika Jagatram Sahani vs. Union of India, the Supreme Court of India recognised the effect of the nationwide lockdown on the Right to Food. The court ruled that with so many people having lost their employment and means of survival, it is crucial that Anganwadis and ration shops be made available.

The judgement does not make any enforceable directives, but it does ask that the various state governments reopen anganwadis as soon as they feel it suitable to do so. The focus of the ruling is on how the states have responded to the pandemic. State officials in Bihar started sending meals to people's homes and depositing money into their bank accounts for individuals who did not have access to Anganwadis.

How Far The Judiciary Has Been Proactive?

Concerns have been raised concerning the legitimacy and accountability of such excessive judicial activism in the world's biggest democracy, as the Supreme Court has restyled its institutional function to become the major guarantee of social rights to the Indian people through public interest litigation.

The Court, however, keeps trying to explain its intrusions by saying that it is making up for the weakness of the Executive and Legislative branches. As former Justice Krishna Iyer put it, "in a society where liberties suffer from atrophy, and engagement is vital for participatory public justice, more risks have to be made and more chances given for the public minded citizens to reliance on the legal process."26 Some locals sued the city government in Municipal Council, Ratlam v. Vardhichand & Ors 27 because it had failed to properly remove trash from public areas.

The company is using the argument that it is broke. While dismissing the case, Justice Krishna Iyer of the Supreme Court wrote, "The State would recognise that Article 47 makes it a basic tenet of governance that efforts are made for the promotion of public health as among its primary obligations." A municipal council that was elected to protect the public's health and improve the city's finances cannot shirk its primary responsibility by saying it lacks the means to do so.

Ultimately, the Court is dedicated to serving the interests of the Indian people and delivering constitutional justice. Indian economic and social institutions, social agendas, and power inequalities have all been harshly criticised by the Supreme Court. Despite political criticism, the court remains the most trusted institution in the eyes of the public, suggesting widespread support for judicial activity.

An Indian citizen was on his way to the Supreme Court, where he planned to argue his case solely on the basis of constitutional provisions he had memorised. The majority of Indians now have optimism for the future since public interest litigation is a normal part of the Indian legal system and "The court has emerged as the knight in shining armour."28

Right To Health Bill Introduced In Rajasthan

The state of Rajasthan created history when it proposed the "Right to Health Bill" in the state assembly. This bill ensures that all residents of the state have access to medical treatment. The assembly has requested that the Bill be examined by a special committee, which will then provide its findings and recommendations to the body within one week.

Why is it being Criticized?
Health activists have argued that it is not desirable nor practical to severely restrict the jurisdiction of civil courts, as the State Health Capacity or District Health Ability lacks the authority and resources to deal with the spectrum of conflicts or issues that may occur.

The 'Social Audit,' which will be carried out by the community making use of the social dimension, is expressly included in the Bill as well. It is recommended that the Social Audit be carried out in compliance with the Social Auditing Standards established by the CAG.

The bill's introduction was immediately followed by a press statement that detailed the bill's "flaws" and "missing" sections. The statement was issued by a group of health-focused non- governmental organisations (NGOs). Advocates for people's rights to health care believe that the law does not go far enough to ensure that individuals have access to even the most essential forms of medical care.

Simply put, the Coronavirus outbreak has been devastating to the gains made by organisations devoted to providing healthy food and defending people's right to eat. India has implemented complex measures to guarantee its citizens' access to healthy food, with the National Food Security Act as the key driver.

Although not all states have fully implemented the act and states have not yet produced a standardised system to ensure residents' access to nutritious food, the majority of these jurisdictions have established their own systems, each with its own record of accomplishment.

It is imperative that these services be restored as soon as possible, especially in regards to feeding children and women, as multiple sources concur that India is now in the endemic phase.

Conclusion
The courts have intervened on multiple occasions to ensure that individuals' access to health care is safeguarded and that governments uphold their duty to do so. The right to health care provided by Article 21 has frequently been interpreted broadly by the Supreme Court and the High Courts, using the powers granted to them by Article 32 and Article 226.

Although some may view the exercise of such power as judicial overreach, the outcomes would be greatly welcomed. Existence of Directive Principles of state Policy provides more evidence of the requirement and obligation.

Right to Health cannot be implemented until certain constitutional prerequisites are accomplished. Solidarity, the belief that all people should have a sense of "oneness" and that no one should be left behind, should guide how the Right to Health is implemented. For this principle to be universally applicable, it would entail placing a priority on the well-being of the most vulnerable among us in order to guarantee that everyone in the country had access to the same opportunity.

This is why it is so important to back healthcare coverage initiatives like Aayushman Bharat, which give priority to covering those who can't pay it otherwise. The third idea is accountability, which means that the people and the public alike should be aware of who in government is responsible for what, and why.

This study also investigated the test of proportionality in light of the government's actions during the coronavirus pandemic, which included tracking individuals via mobile applications and even asking for hourly pictures from those who were imprisoned. The purpose of the proportionality test is to prevent the violation of one set of rights by the exercise of another set of rights.

While a statewide lockdown to safeguard public health did not disproportionately restrict people's freedom of movement, tracking people's movements without their agreement was far too intrusive to their right to privacy and was thus unconstitutional.

Bibliography
Articles:

• Reardon, T., Mishra, A., Nuthalapati, C. S. R., Bellamare, M. F., & Zilberman, D. (2020). COVID-19's disruption of India's transformed food supply chains. Economic and Political Weekly, 55(18)
• Sheetal B. Shah, 'Illuminating the Possible in the Developing World: Guaranteeing the Human Right to Health in India' (1999) 32 Vand J Transnat'l L 435
• Anurag Bhaskar, 'Constitutional Solidarity' (Livelaw.in 30 December 2017), accessed 8 November 2022.
• Shikhar Srinivastava, 'Right to Health' (2018) 3 Supremo Amicus 526
• Gautam Bhatia, Coronavirus and the Constitution – VII: Balancing Privacy and Public Health in Karnataka, IndConLawPhil, 2020
• Tom H. Christoffel, 'Right to Health Protection' (1978) 6 Black LJ 183
• Bhanu Pratap Singh, 'Position of Right to Health in India' (2020) 3 Int'l JL Mgmt & Human 401
• P. Srivastava, 'Public Health and Right to Health in India: Evaluation of Gap between Policy and Implementation' (2012) 2 Nirma U LJ [30]

Case Laws:

• Mohini Jain v. State of Karnataka MANU/SC/0357/1992
• Dipika Jagatram Sahani vs Union of India (WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.1039 OF 2020)
• K.S. Puttaswamy and Anr. vs. Union of India MANU/SC/1604/2017
• Parmanand Katra v. Union of India MANU/SC/0423/1989
• MANU/SC/0080/1981
• Ratlam v. Vardhichand & Ors, MANU/SC/0748/2019

Books:

• MP Jain, Indian Constitutional Law, Lexis Nexis, 2020

Statutes:

• Constitution of India, 1950
• National Food Security Act, 2013

Websites:

• Nishant Sirohi, 'Declaring the Right to Health a Fundamental Right' (ORF 14 July 2020) https://www.orfonline.org/expert-speak/declaring-the-right-to-health-a-fundamental-right/ accessed 8 November 2022.
• 'Tabeenah Anjum, 'Explained: Why Rajasthan's Right to Health Bill Is Getting Mixed Reactions, What Are Stakeholders Proposing?' (https://www.outlookindia.com/ 25 September 2022) https://www.outlookindia.com/national/explained-why-rajasthan-government-right-to-health-bill-is-getting-mixed-reactions-what-are-stakeholders-proposing-news-225761 accessed 8 November 2022.
• 'WMA - the World Medical Association-Right to Health' (Wma.net 2014) https://www.wma.net/what-we-do/human-rights/right-to-health/ accessed 8 November 2022.

References:

1. M.P.Jain, Indian Constitutional Law (8th edn, LexisNexis 2018) 1184.
2. Sheetal B. Shah, 'Illuminating the Possible in the Developing World: Guaranteeing the Human Right to Health in India' (1999) 32 Vand J Transnat'l L 435
3. Shikhar Srinivastava, 'Right to Health' (2018) 3 Supremo Amicus 526
4. Tom H. Christoffel, 'Right to Health Protection' (1978) 6 Black LJ 183
5. Bhanu Pratap Singh, 'Position of Right to Health in India' (2020) 3 Int'l JL Mgmt & Human 401
6. S. P. Srivastava, 'Public Health and Right to Health in India: Evaluation of Gap between Policy and Implementation' (2012) 2 Nirma U LJ [30]
7. Gautam Bhatia, Directive Principles of State Policy, p644
8. MANU/SC/0423/1989
9. MANU/SC/0357/1992
10. MANU/SC/0517/1981
11. MANU/SC/0552/1997
12. MANU/SC/0611/1996
13. MANU/SC/0175/1995
14. (Civil) No. 196/2001
15. National Food Security Act, 2013
16. Mahak Tanwar, COVID-19 And Its Impact On Socio-Economic Rights in India, 2020
17. Muzna Alvi and Manavi Gupta, "Learning in Times of Lockdown: How Covid-19 Is Affecting Education and Food Security in India" (2020) 12 Food Security 793 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12571-020-01065-4
18. Anurag Bhaskar, Constitutional Solidarity, LiveLaw, 2017
19. Kiran Kumar Gowd, COVID‐19 and the legislative response in India: The need for a comprehensive health care law, NCBI, 2021
20. 'Coronavirus and the Constitution – VII: Balancing Privacy and Public Health in Karnataka [Guest Post]' (Indian Constitutional Law and Philosophy3 April 2020) https://indconlawphil.wordpress.com/2020/04/03/coronavirus-and-the-constitution-vii-balancing-privacy-and-public-health-in-karnataka-guest-post/ accessed 9 November 2022.
21. MANU/SC/1604/2017
22. MN Kamel Boulos, Geographical tracking and mapping of coronavirus disease COVID-19/severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) epidemic and associated events around the world: how 21st century GIS technologies are supporting the global fight against outbreaks and epidemics, International Journal of Health Geographics,2020
23. 'NITI Aayog Releases Fourth Edition of State Health Index' (Pib.gov.in2021) https://pib.gov.in/ accessed 8 November 2022.
24. Nishant Sirohi, 'Declaring the Right to Health a Fundamental Right' (ORF 14 July 2020) https://www.orfonline.org/expert-speak/declaring-the-right-to-health-a-fundamental-right/ accessed 8
25. MANU/SC/0080/1981
26. MANU/SC/0171/1980
27. M.R. Narayan Swamy, Indian Politicians Run for Cover as Judiciary Takes Over, Agence France Presse

Written By:

1. Shreyansh Agrawal, BA LLB (2020-2025) - Lloyd Law College
2. Jitender Kumar Jangid, BA LLB (2020-2025) - National Law University, Delhi