Question

The case of Parmanand Katara v. Union of India (1989) is primarily associated with which of the following rights?

• A. Right to speedy trial
• B. Right to life and personal liberty
• C. Right to emergency medical care
• D. Right to clean and healthy environment

Hint:

Always remember the Parmanand Katara case as the cornerstone of "Emergency Medical Care" in India; it established that "Life is more precious than legal formalities."

Answer 1

The Correct Option is C

Step 1: Understanding the Concept:
The Parmanand Katara v. Union of India (1989) case is a landmark judgment in Indian jurisprudence that interpreted Article 21 of the Constitution to include the right to immediate medical assistance in emergencies.

Step 2: Key Formula or Approach:
The Supreme Court ruled that procedural formalities (like police reports or medico-legal procedures) should not delay life-saving treatment, as the preservation of human life is paramount.

Step 3: Detailed Explanation:
The Court held that every injured citizen, whether innocent or a criminal, has a right to receive immediate medical aid to preserve their life.
This ruling mandated that all hospitals and medical practitioners, both public and private, have a legal obligation to provide emergency treatment without waiting for legal formalities to be completed.
Thus, the case is fundamentally associated with the "Right to emergency medical care" as a facet of the Right to Life.

Step 4: Final Answer:
The correct answer is (C).

Answer 2

Parmanand Katara v. Union of India is remembered for a very specific extension of Article 21, so this question is best answered by pinning down exactly what the case decided rather than the broader family of rights it touches. Let's go through each option.

1. Right to speedy trial: That right comes from a different line of cases dealing with undue delay in criminal proceedings and pre-trial detention. It has nothing to do with the facts or holding in Parmanand Katara.
2. Right to life and personal liberty: Article 21 is certainly the constitutional home of the ruling, but naming the article in general terms is too broad an answer. The case is celebrated for spelling out a concrete facet of that right, not for stating the general right itself.
3. Right to emergency medical care: This is the precise contribution of the case. The Supreme Court held that every injured person, whatever the circumstances, has a right to immediate medical attention, and that doctors and hospitals, public or private, cannot delay treatment for procedural or legal formalities such as police reports.
4. Right to clean and healthy environment: This right was recognised in separate environmental litigation and has no connection to the medical emergency context of Parmanand Katara.

The judgment is specifically remembered for establishing that emergency medical treatment cannot be withheld pending legal formalities, which makes the right to emergency medical care the precise right associated with it.

Hence, the correct answer is Right to emergency medical care.