Health (Right to)

Primary tabs

Petitioners challenged the Ugandan Government’s failure to provide basic maternal health services in violation of (1) the right to health, (2) the right to life, and (3) the right of women, under the Constitution.

The action arose from an appeal of two High Court decisions that were issued in 2016. A local women’s group (Mahila Mandals) and other self-help groups challenged the validity of a tender notice issued by the state of Maharashtra that year. The tender awarded a contract to large corporations with strong political connections for the supply of nutritional food supplements to beneficiaries under the ICDS.

The petitioner, Sandesh Bansal, is a health activist and member of Jan Adhikaar Manch, a nongovernmental organization (NGO) working to raise concern over the high maternal mortality rate (MMR) in Madhya Pradesh as a part of their “Save our Mothers” campaign. The case was also part of Human Rights Law Network’s (HRLN’s) national litigation strategy to address India’s high maternal mortality and morbidity rates. Petitioner alleged that the state failed to provide basic and adequate maternal healthcare.

This case concerns the constitutionality of Section 3(d) of the 2005 Amendment (“Amendment”) to India’s Patent Law, which was added to comply with Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) and World Trade Organization’s (WTO) minimum standards for protecting intellectual property.  Section 3(d) requires that inventions based on a known substance be patentable only if they show the “enhanced efficacy” of the known substance.  Novartis, a large pharmaceutical company, submitted a patent application for its leukemia medication, Gleevec.  Novartis’ application was denied on

The claimant filed a tutela action against the Public Works of Cartagena alleging that they put into operation an uncompleted sewer system, producing overflowing black waters and unsanitary conditions in two neighborhoods. The complaint alleged a violation of Article 88 of the Colombian constitution protecting the right to public health and asked for injunctive relief to prevent irreparable harm, as established under Article 5 of the Decree 2591.

This tutela case concerned the requirement that the state provide health services to a group of children living in an impoverished area of Bogotá. Four hundred and eighteen families brought this action against the Ministry of Health and the District Secretary of Health seeking free vaccines against two strains of bacterial meningitis. The plaintiffs argued their case under Article 44 of the Colombian Constitution, which guarantees certain freedoms and protections to children, and under various treaties to which Colombia subscribed.

In August 2008, the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare’s NACO developed an “Office Memorandum” in response to a public interest litigation (PIL), in which the Supreme Court reviewed the steps taken by NACO to combat HIV/AIDS and the services being provided to patients. The Supreme Court had issued directives, including those aimed at improving the sufficiency of centres distributing second line anti-retroviral therapy (ART).

Inter-American Court Finds Right to Health Violation in the Context of Emergency Medical Services

On January 17, 2001, Vinicio Poblete Vilches was admitted to the Chilean public Hospital Sotero del Rio with severe respiratory failure. He was 76 years old and was sent to the Intensive Care Unit (ICU), where he was in an unconscious state for several days. He underwent surgery, was discharged and readmitted, and died in the hospital on February 7. The principal questions before the Inter-American Court were whether the state violated: 1) the human rights to health and life of Mr.

Kenyan High Court finds violations of rights to health, dignity, and personal integrity in maternal healthcare case

J.M. sought maternal health care in the Bungoma District Hospital, now the Bungoma County Referral Hospital. This hospital is a public health care facility that, in line with the President of Kenya’s 2013 Presidential Directive, was supposed to provide free maternal health care. At the hospital, J.M. was told to pay for medicine to induce her labor, and after her labor was induced, she was ordered to walk to the delivery room when her labor pains started. She followed the directive, found the delivery beds occupied, and had started to return to the labor ward, when she fainted.