THE RIGHT TO LIFE IN INDIA
INTRODUCTION
During the summer of 2024, a religious gathering at Hathras, Uttar Pradesh, collapsed into one of India’s deadliest stampedes.[1] And within months, contaminated water in Indore, Madhya Pradesh, claimed five lives and hospitalised more than two hundred residents.[2] In Rajasthan’s public hospitals, the state health department officially acknowledged fourteen deaths attributed to medical negligence, yet no meaningful accountability followed for any of it.[3] These are not isolated incidents; they form part of a deeply entrenched pattern of failure in the government structures that are constitutionally bound to protect every citizen.
India has some of the most essential jurisprudential rights in the world. Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees one the right to life and personal liberty, and its ambit has been repeatedly expanded to include the right to health, a safe environment, and emergency medical care by the Supreme Court of India.[4]
BACKGROUND: THE LEGAL LANDSCAPE
- Constitutional Framework
The Constitution of India requires the State to take positive action, since Article 21 broadly includes the right to health and medical treatment.[5] Article 47 states that it is a primary duty of the government to improve public health; these provisions together create a framework that demands an active protection of citizen welfare.
In tort, State liability is mainly governed by Article 300 of the Constitution, which provides that the Government of India or the State may sue or be sued.[6] and limits the scope of sovereign immunity, post the colonial jurisprudence. Vicarious liability of the State for the negligent acts of its servants while performing a duty was established in various landmark decisions, including Kasturilal Ralia Ram Jain v State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1965 SC 1039.[7]
- Emerging Doctrine: Constitutional Torts and Public Law Remedies
The concept of constitutional tort has been recognised as a public law remedy available when the State violates the fundamental rights through negligent or wrongful conduct,[8] which allows for monetary compensation directly under the writ jurisdiction, bypassing delays inherent in civil tort litigation. This was also reaffirmed by the Kerala High Court in the case of LIC.[9]holding that any denial of a medical insurance claim violates Article 21, grounded in the right to life.[10]
The Consumer Protection Act, 2019, has also reinforced government liability in health contexts by treating recipients of government health services as ‘consumers’ entitled to seek a remedy for any deficiency in services.
DETAILED ANALYSIS
- The Hathras Stampede: Official Negligence and Structural Mismanagement
The findings mirrored a national pattern, revealing that in the fifteen years between 2009 and 2024, 21 major stampede incidents occurred across India; 741 persons lost their lives in these incidents; and not a single conviction was made against any government official or event organiser.[11] This zero-conviction record says a great deal about how accountability actually works in India. The law is not silent here since Section 106 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, which replaces the former Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code, criminalises death by negligence, and public officials may also face civil liability. And yet, the system simply does not act on it. Thus, this failure is not incidental; it reflects a culture of administrative immunity that treats citizens’ deaths as inconveniences rather than wrongs.
- Medical Negligence in Public Hospitals: The Rajasthan Data
Figures of death due to negligence in government hospitals across Rajasthan[12] are not allegations from patient groups or assumptions drawn from circumstantial evidence — they are the government’s own admission about what goes on in its hospitals. Under tort law, this goes on to establish a duty of care, a standard of care by the state hospital to the patient, and its breach. Still, no systematic legal accountability has followed from any of this.
The Kerala High Court’s 2025 ruling denied medical insurance as arbitrary and unreasonable, violating the claimant’s right to life under Article 21. When there exists a legitimate health insurance by a state-linked insurer, suggesting that it has committed a constitutional wrong that attracts judicial remedies, since the State, through its agencies, denied entitlements without lawful justification.
- Public Infrastructure Negligence: The Indore Water Contamination Crisis
The contaminated water is supplied through the municipal network in Indore and killed five residents, hospitalised at least 210 others in early 2025.[13] For which the government suspended only two officials, which is, at best, a formal gesture and does not come close to the criminal accountability or civil liability that a tragedy of this scale demands.
The provision of safe drinking water is a basic responsibility of the state, as it is a direct part of Article 21, interpreted broadly many times in terms of the right to a healthy environment and access to safe water as components of the right to life.[14] What these incidents make clear is that negligence in basic public infrastructure like water supply, crowd management, and hospital care kills people, and the State cannot hide behind its administrative role to escape liability under Article 21.[15]
COUNTERARGUMENT ANALYSIS
- The Doctrine of Sovereign Immunity and Governmental Capacity Constraints
One common argument against wide-ranging state tort liability draws on the doctrine of sovereign immunity, the idea that the State, while carrying out governmental functions, should not be held to the same liability standards as private actors, because doing so would disrupt public administration and pull scarce resources away from public service into defending court cases.[16] Also, if the government is made liable for every small mistake, it’ll create perverse incentives and overburden the judicial system.
However, this argument carries limited weight in the present Indian legal context. Indian courts, after the Constitution came into force, have progressively narrowed this immunity by drawing a line between sovereign acts, which still carry immunity, and non-sovereign acts, which do not.[17] Thus, functions like the supply of drinking water, running hospitals, and managing public gatherings are to be considered non-sovereign acts and everyday administrative functions, which make them liable. More importantly, this doctrine of sovereign immunity cannot be used as a shield for gross negligence that causes preventable death, for which Articles 21 and 32 exist to ensure that it is not.
- Citizen Responsibility and the Role of Civic Indiscipline
Yes, the government is responsible for citizens’ welfare, but it would be unfair to say that citizens carry no responsibility at all for their own behaviour. For instance, stampedes are sometimes attributed to surges in crowds driven by panic in individuals, along with the non-compliance with management instructions and the tendency to exceed the permitted capacity due to their own actions.[18] For this, the state cannot be wholly responsible for tragedies that are also partly due to the undisciplined conduct of the citizens.
Normal compliance with civic discipline and safety instructions can reduce the risks of these incidents for a genuine public good. For public health, citizens should try not to dispose of waste in various water bodies or ignore the advisories to prevent risks, and be aware of their environment to immediately report to authorities.
However, acknowledging the responsibilities of citizens does not dissolve the state’s accountability, as it holds a non-negotiable duty of public safety that is effective even when an individual participant behaves imperfectly. The authorities in the Hathras case placed primary blame not on the crowd but on the negligence of the officials in permitting planning and emergency response.[19] because a properly run public event needs sufficient barriers, trained personnel, and emergency protocols in place. When those are missing, it is an official failure and not a problem of unruly crowds.
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Years of stampede data, government-acknowledged deaths from medical negligence, and zero convictions to show for any of it — together, these point to a structural problem that goes far beyond individual incidents. With all these laws and statutes in existence, what consistently lacks is the political will of the state and the urgency of response that this crisis demands.
No public gathering should be without a safety audit and management standards with accountability on named officials. The government must also invest in civic awareness and public education, because a responsive administration and an informed citizenry are not opposing forces.
The right to life is a justified constitutional guarantee that should not be compromised at any cost.
Author(s) Name: Kumari Eesha.S (Maharaja Saiyajirao University, Faculty of Law)
References:
[1] New Indian Express, ‘Hathras Stampede: Judicial Panel Blames Negligence by Officials, Mismanagement, Seeks Deeper Probe’ (5 March 2025) < https://www.newindianexpress.com/nation/2025/Mar/05/hathras-stampede-judicial-panel-blames-negligence-by-officials-mismanagement-seeks-deeper-probe > accessed February 2025.
[2]Moohita Kaur Garg, ‘Madhya Pradesh Suspends 2 Officials as Indore Water Contamination Kills 5, Hospitalises 210’ (2025) WION News < https://www.wionews.com/india-news/madhya-pradesh-suspends-2-officials-as-indore-water-contamination-kills-5-hospitalises-210-1767408150655 > accessed February 2025.
[3] Times of India, ‘Health Department Acknowledges 14 Negligence-Related Deaths in Hospitals’ (2025) < https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/jaipur/health-department-acknowledges-14-negligence-related-deaths-in-hosps/articleshow/127784406.cms > accessed February 2025.
[4] Constitution of India, art 21; Parmanand Katara v Union of India AIR 1989 SC 2039 (Supreme Court of India).
[5] Constitution of India, arts 21, 47; State of Punjab v Ram Lubhaya Bagga (1998) 4 SCC 117.
[6] Constitution of India, art 300
[7] Arryan Mohanty, ‘A Critical Analysis of Tortious Liability of the Administration in India’ (2023) ResearchGate, Vol-4 < https://www.researchgate.net/publication/390638045_A_Critical_Analysis_of_Tortious_Liability_of_the_Administration_in_India> accessed 12 February 2025
[8] Nilabati Behera v State of Orissa (1993) 2 SCC 746; K.Anushka, ‘Constitutional Torts and State Liability in India’ (2018) 5 IJRAR <https://ijrar.com/upload_issue/ijrar_issue_20542257.pdf > accessed February 2025.
[9] Dr. A.M. Muraleedharan v. Senior Divisional Manager, 2025 SCC OnLine Ker 8566
[10]Apoorva, ‘Denial of Medical Insurance Claim Violates Article 21: Kerala HC, LIC Orders Quashed’ (7 October 2025) SCC Online Blog < https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2025/10/07/denial-of-medical-insurance-claim-violates-article-21-kerala-hc-lic-orders-quashed/ > accessed February 2025.
[11] Surajbhan Sharma, ‘India Stampede: 741 Dead, 21 Incidents, 15 Years, Zero Convictions’ Bhaskar English (2024) < https://www.bhaskarenglish.in/national/news/india-stampede-741-dead-21-incidents-15-years-zero-convictions-karrur-stampede-136046078.html> accessed February 2025.
[12] The Print, ’12 Deaths Due to Medical Negligence in Rajasthan in Past Two Years: State Govt’ < https://theprint.in/india/12-deaths-due-to-medical-negligence-in-rajasthan-in-past-two-years-state-govt/2841066/> accessed February 2025.
[13] WION News (n 2).
[14] Subhash Kumar v State of Bihar (1991) 1 SCC 598
[15] Manupatra, Constitutional Law of India, Chapter 27 < http://student.manupatra.com/Academic/Abk/Constitutional-Law-of-India/CHAPTER-27.htm> accessed 12 February 2025.
[16] IJIRL (n 4)
[17] ResearchGate (n 4).
[18]Sharanya Hirshikesh, ‘More than 120 killed in crush at India religious event'(2024), BBC News < https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cv2g7wgj83no > accessed February 2025.
[19] New Indian Express (n 1).