9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Right to full and free medicare for ex-servicemen as a fundamental right. 2. Discrimination between in-service defence personnel and ex-servicemen regarding medical facilities. 3. Legitimacy and validity of the Ex-Servicemen Contributory Health Scheme (ECHS). Detailed Analysis: 1. Right to Full and Free Medicare for Ex-Servicemen as a Fundamental Right: The petitioner, Confederation of ex-servicemen Associations, sought recognition of full and free medicare for ex-servicemen, their families, and dependents as a fundamental right under the Constitution of India. They argued that this right should be treated on par with the rights of in-service defence personnel. The petitioner highlighted the historical context and various committees' recommendations that underscored the need for enhanced medical facilities for ex-servicemen. The petitioner contended that the refusal to provide such facilities was arbitrary, discriminatory, and violative of Articles 14, 16, 19, and 21 of the Constitution. 2. Discrimination Between In-Service Defence Personnel and Ex-Servicemen Regarding Medical Facilities: The Union of India argued that in-service defence personnel and ex-servicemen belong to different classes and therefore can be treated differently. The respondents contended that medical facilities provided to in-service personnel are a service requirement for defence preparedness, while ex-servicemen are provided medical treatment subject to available resources. The court agreed that the classification between in-service and retired personnel is legal, valid, and reasonable, and does not violate Article 14 of the Constitution. The court emphasized that Article 14 prohibits class legislation but allows reasonable classification. 3. Legitimacy and Validity of the Ex-Servicemen Contributory Health Scheme (ECHS): The Union of India introduced the ECHS, a contributory scheme for ex-servicemen, which extends medical benefits on payment of a one-time contribution. The petitioner challenged the scheme, arguing that ex-servicemen should not be required to pay for medical facilities. The court examined the scheme and found it to be legal, valid, and constitutional. The court held that while the right to medical aid is a fundamental right, the contributory nature of the ECHS is reasonable and does not violate the Constitution. The court noted that the scheme provides extensive medical facilities and the contribution required is not excessive. Conclusion: The court concluded that the Ex-Servicemen Contributory Health Scheme (ECHS) is legal, valid, and constitutional. However, the court directed the Government of India to either waive the contribution amount or pay it on behalf of ex-servicemen who retired prior to January 1, 1996, and wish to avail the benefits of the ECHS. This decision was based on the recognition of the valuable services rendered by defence personnel and the need to provide them with adequate medical facilities. The writ petition was partly allowed, and the rule was made absolute to the extent indicated, with parties bearing their own costs.
|
