State’s failure to provide specialized burn infrastructure violates the constitutional right to health under Article 21.

In 2021, an incident in Hazaribagh involving highly inflammable, adulterated kerosene (flash point of 13.5°C against a 35°C safety minimum) supplied through the Public Distribution System led to four deaths and fifteen grievous burn injuries

The Petitioner filed this Public Interest Litigation (PIL) alleging that victims at Sadar Hospital, Hazaribagh, were denied specialized care due to a lack of dedicated burn units, were treated in general wards, and were forced to purchase essential medicines from the open market

During proceedings, the State admitted that no specialized wards with modern facilities for burn injuries existed in government hospitals across the entire State of Jharkhand

The Court subsequently expanded the scope of the PIL to address the systemic deficiency in state-wide specialized healthcare infrastructure

1. Whether the state-wide absence of specialized burn care facilities in government hospitals constitutes a violation of the "Right to Health" and "Right to Life" under Article 21 of the Constitution

2. Whether the Court can grant specific monetary compensation to victims in a PIL or if such claims must be adjudicated through statutory or civil frameworks

3. Whether the State can plead financial or administrative constraints to justify the non-implementation of essential medical infrastructure

The Court primarily relied on the "Right to Health" as an integral part of the "Right to Life" under Article 21 of the Constitution, as established in Consumer Education and Research Centre v. Union of India and Kirloskar Brothers Ltd. v. ESIC

It applied the principle from Paschim Banga Khet Mazdoor Samity v. State of West Bengal, which mandates that a welfare State cannot use "lack of financial funds" as a defense for failing to provide emergency medical infrastructure

Regarding compensation, the Court invoked the doctrine of ‘constitutional tort’ from Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa

referenced the statutory Victim Compensation Scheme under Section 357-A of the CrPC, 1973 (now Section 396 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023)

The Court observed that burn management is a medical super-specialty requiring a "sterile ecosystem" rather than a general ward bed

It found the State’s claim of "adequate logistics" inconsistent with a 2021 CAG report, which noted that 20 completed burn units remained non-functional due to a lack of equipment

The Court reasoned that since India bears a high global burden of burn mortality, the State's failure to operationalize sanctioned infrastructure represents a breach of its positive mandate to protect life with dignity

While acknowledging the right to compensation for constitutional torts, the Court determined that calculating specific quantum for 15+ victims required evidentiary assessment unsuitable for a PIL; thus, it directed the use of statutory schemes and the District Legal Services Authority (DLSA) to ensure immediate succor

It declined to grant specific monetary sums but directed the victims to approach the jurisdictional court/DLSA for compensation under Section 357-A CrPC/Section 396 BNSS

The State must make dedicated burn units fully functional in all district hospitals and medical colleges within 120 days

The State must ensure adequate stocking of medicines and round-the-clock specialist care in these units

A State Monitoring Committee must be constituted within four weeks to oversee implementation

Training and capacity-building for medical staff must be completed within 90 days