Author(s): Dr. Chandni Kundu Gupta and Payal Aggarwal
Paper Details: Volume 3, Issue 4
Citation: IJLSSS 3(4) 39
Page No: 498 – 507
ABSTRACT
The intersection of public health and human rights is crucial, yet many countries struggle to create laws that effectively protect both. The right to health is enshrined in several international agreements, including the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), the WHO Constitution, and the Paris Agreement. However, challenges persist, including unequal access to healthcare, climate change impacts, and concerns over data privacy in health systems. This article examines how laws can be strengthened to ensure fair and equal healthcare for all while protecting human rights. Key issues explored include privacy concerns in health data, the role of artificial intelligence (AI) in medicine, which holds promise for improving cancer screening and diagnosis, treatment planning, research, and drug discovery and development. The impact of climate change on vulnerable communities, mental health rights, fair regulations on substance use, and the safety of healthcare workers are also critical areas that demand strong legal protection. Through a critical analysis of India’s legal approach in conjunction with international health laws, this study highlights areas where public health policies require improved implementation. It argues that governments must establish stronger, fairer healthcare systems that can respond to health crises, protect patient rights, and ensure healthcare workers are treated fairly.
Ultimately, this article aims to strengthen global cooperation and reinforce national commitments to human rights, thereby enhancing healthcare systems to address modern challenges. By aligning public health policies with human rights, we can promote health equity, social justice, and human dignity.
Keywords: Public Health, Human Rights, International Agreements, Climate Change and Health, Health Security, AI in Medicine
INTRODUCTION
According to the World Health Organization (WHO), “Health is a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity.” This definition is both bold and visionary, compelling us to broaden our understanding of health beyond the mere absence of illness. It urges a holistic view that encompasses the mental, emotional, and social dimensions of human well-being. Public health, therefore, extends far beyond clinical treatment and focuses on organized efforts—both public and private—to prevent disease, promote health, and protect the health of communities.
Public health law encompasses key principles aimed at protecting and promoting the health of populations. Central among these are social justice, risk management, and the protection of vulnerable groups. Together, these principles create a framework that balances public health priorities with the preservation of individual rights. Social justice highlights the importance of equity in health policies, ensuring that interventions are accessible to everyone—particularly marginalized communities. It advocates for the fair distribution of healthcare resources and services, reinforcing the connection between public health law and human rights. Risk management is another core principle, centred on identifying and addressing threats to public health. Effective public health legislation includes measures such as quarantine and vaccination to prevent the spread of disease; while also safeguarding individual freedoms and rights and the protection of vulnerable populations is a foundational element. Public health law requires focused attention on those most at risk during health crises, promoting an inclusive and rights-based approach. This dynamic underscore the strong relationship between public health law and human rights.
At its core, public health seeks to address upstream determinants that influence the well-being of entire populations. The World Federation of Public Health Associations (WFPHA) outlines a comprehensive framework emphasizing protection, prevention, and promotion as central tenets. While health departments have a pivotal role in shaping public health strategies, the responsibility extends to all sectors of society. Achieving meaningful improvements in population health requires collaborative and coordinated action across a spectrum of stakeholders, including other government departments, the private sector, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), international bodies, and local communities. These sectors—spanning education, finance, housing, employment, agriculture, environment, and beyond—must work together in pursuit of shared goals that prioritize health equity and sustainability.
Despite notable progress, public health continues to face formidable challenges. These include the escalating threats of climate change, antimicrobial resistance, the burden of non-communicable diseases, and the persistent risk of infectious disease outbreaks with pandemic potential. Additionally, fragile and conflict-affected settings further strain healthcare delivery. Confronting these issues demands unwavering commitment and multisectoral collaboration. Aligning national policies with international human rights obligations is fundamental to ensuring inclusive and equitable outcomes.
International treaties, such as the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), establish the right to the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health. Governments must critically assess their existing public health laws to determine whether they uphold principles such as equality, non-discrimination, accessibility, and protection of vulnerable groups. Unfortunately, outdated or inadequate legislation often fails to protect marginalized communities or provide mechanisms for redress when rights are violated. Integrating accountability mechanisms is key to turning these legal commitments into effective action. There is another treaty international covenant on civil and political rights (ICCPR) which is globally ratified by 170+ countries and monitored by human rights committee (UNHRC) but its decisions are binding on all the states. The European convention on human rights (ECHR) offers stronger enforcement through a regional court system, while the ICCPR establishes universal human rights standard under the UN framework. Together, they form a complementary framework for the protection of fundamental human rights at both global and regional levels.
HIV/AIDS AND PUBLIC HEALTH POLICY
There is an Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of intellectual property Rights (TRIPS) member countries of the WTO are required to provide patents protection for pharmaceutical products because of the patent protection essential medicines become inaccessible to many people particularly those affected by HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, malaria and other epidemics. It is the duty of the state to provide the treatment at affordable price. State must also have a public health policy to prevent the spread of AIDS/HIV. Subodh Srama and Anr vs State of Assam[1] the court issued the comprehensive guidelines in regarding HIV affected person: (1) Implementation regarding the NACO guidelines with the WHO London Declaration on Aids Prevention 1988. (2) The Government should close the licensed bold banks and set up a council to ensure the all WHO recommended test before giving blood to patients. (3) AIDS counselling centre should be in different state hospital depending on necessity and trained and qualified staff to ensure the proper care and prevent the spread of AIDS. (4) Steps should be taken to equip Assam’s three medical college and nominate the trained staff for the effective AIDS management. (5) An effective surveillance system should be set up to track the programme and check funds as per NACO guidelines and accountant General guidelines. (6) AIDS patients should be taken care by the hospital and action should be taken the staff who do so. The DOHA declaration was introduced to give the clarity about the TRIPS agreement should not stand in the way of public health priorities. Countries have the rights to use compulsory licensing and parallel imports to make essential medicines more affordable. It gives each member right to determine what constitutes a national emergency or other urgency including public health crises. DOHA declaration gives right to the nations for the public health benefit. It led to increased global awareness of the balance between intellectual property and human rights. But this declaration did not resolve all issues but laid the foundation for future policy reforms and negotiations.
As the digital transformation accelerates, the intersection of technology and public health presents both opportunities and ethical dilemmas. Tools such as AI-powered diagnostics, digital health IDs, and contact tracing apps have enhanced disease surveillance and personalized healthcare. However, they have also raised serious concerns regarding privacy, consent, and data protection. The COVID-19 pandemic underscored the critical need for global cooperation, especially in sharing health data across borders. While real-time data sharing is essential for tracking disease spread and monitoring vaccination efforts, it must be balanced with safeguards that protect individual rights and dignity.
Cross-border data sharing involves the transfer of sensitive information, including infection rates, vaccination status, and behavioural data from digital tools. This process is essential for global coordination, but in the absence of legal and ethical safeguards, it poses significant risks. While the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) serves as a gold standard for data privacy, many countries lack equivalent protections. Globally, there remains no binding international legal framework to govern health data sharing during pandemics. The International Health Regulations (IHR), while requiring countries to report public health events to the WHO, do not mandate standards for data privacy.
Environmental degradation poses another major public health threat. The Paris Agreement has emphasized the interconnectedness of climate change and health outcomes. Rising temperatures, poor air quality, and extreme weather events are already impacting public health on a global scale. Policymaking in the environmental sector must, therefore, be harmonized with public health objectives. Climate change exacerbates health disparities, displacing populations and restricting access to essential services. In many nations, legal systems do not yet adequately guarantee the right to healthcare in climate-related crises. There is an urgent need for climate-resilient infrastructure, legal frameworks, and inter-agency cooperation to protect the health of vulnerable communities.
India’s judiciary has played a critical role in expanding the interpretation of the constitutional right to life under Article 21, incorporating access to clean water, nutrition, and emergency medical care. Countries such as South Africa and Brazil go further by explicitly enshrining the right to health in their constitutions, underscoring the power of legal recognition in advancing health justice.
Quarantine and isolation remain vital tools in containing infectious diseases. However, without proper oversight, they can lead to human rights violations. Legislation must clearly define the conditions under which individuals can be isolated, outline their rights during such periods, and provide avenues to challenge unjust detention. India’s Epidemic Diseases Act of 1897 is outdated and lacks modern human rights protections. It requires urgent reform to reflect current realities and uphold individual dignity.
The proliferation of surveillance technologies, while beneficial during health emergencies, has intensified concerns over data misuse. Laws must ensure that such surveillance is legal, proportionate, time-bound, and subject to oversight. Independent regulatory bodies should be empowered to oversee the ethical use of personal health data. In India, the proposed Personal Data Protection Bill must be strengthened to adequately safeguard health data and reinforce citizens’ rights.
MENTAL HEALTH LAW IN INDIA 2017
Mental health deserves equal legislative and policy attention. The Mental Health Act, 1987 replaced to The Mental Healthcare Act, 2017 because this act does not lay down the specific guidelines to guarantee minimum standards in the mental health institutions but The Mental Healthcare Act, 2017, is a progressive step in this direction, granting individuals autonomy over their treatment and protection from mistreatment. The 2017 Act ensures the rights and dignity of the people with mental illness including their right to access care, live in the community and make decisions about their treatment. The act also recognizes that the people attempting suicide may be suffering from mental illness and need more care not punishment. Mental authorities at national and state levels for better regulation, licensing of facilities and protection of patient rights. However, the availability and accessibility of mental health services remain insufficient, particularly in rural and marginalized regions. Targeted investment and outreach are essential to bridge these gaps and uphold the mental health rights of all citizens. However, in the case of Rakesh Chandra Narayan vs. State of Bihar[2] the case arose from a letter highlighting poor conditions at a government -run mental hospital in Ranchi. The court emphasized that Bihar is the welfare state and its duty to provide a proper medical care to the public. It also stated that spending public funds on such Hospitals is necessary, regardless of returns and the Government mist run them efficiently and with sincerity. However, the court found the Government’s responses lacking genuine commitment. The court initially issued the following directions: (1) Each patient at Ranchi Mansik Arogyashala will receive an increased daily diet allowance, ensuring they are provided with adequate and nutritious food. (2) Immediate arrangement should be made to provide the hospital with sufficient clean drinking water, including using water tankers if needed. (3) All patients must be provided mattresses and blankets withing 15 days. Those without cots should receive them within 6 weeks, ensuring no patient remains without a cot. (4) The State Government must immediately begin the process of appointing a qualified Psychiatrist and a medical Superintendent, who should assume their roles at the hospital withing six weeks from today. The Court instructed the Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM) of Ranchi to visit the mental hospital every three weeks and submit quarterly reports to ensure the court’s directions were being followed. It also addressed serious concerns about the cured female patients not being released, as their families were unwilling to take them back. Since Hospitals are not meant to house cured individuals, the court emphasized the urgent need for a rehabilitation centre near Ranchi. This centre helps such patients both male and female who are otherwise unable to return home or find employment. The committee was asked to set up this centre and use available funds for its development. However, when minor progress was made despite repeated orders, the court finally directed the introduce an autonomous body to manage the hospital more effectively.
Public health law must also address lifestyle-related challenges, such as tobacco use, alcohol abuse, and drug dependency. The WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control has guided countries in adopting measures like advertising bans, increased taxation, and health warnings. These strategies can also be adapted to address other harmful substances. Nations like Canada, Germany, and Malta have legalized medical cannabis, but such steps must be accompanied by strong regulatory frameworks to ensure responsible use. In India, current drug laws are highly punitive and may need reconsideration where emerging research supports medical benefits. In the case of Chimanlal vs state of Maharashtra [3] the main issue was whether ‘absorbent cotton, wool, roller bandages and gauze’ are drugs or not under the Act? The Hon’ble Supreme court held that the definition of ‘drugs’ is section 3(d) of the drugs act is comprehensive enough to cover not only medicines but also substances intended to be used for or in treatment of diseases of human beings. ‘Absorbent cotton, wool, roller bandages and gauze’ are material used for a disease treatment and hence are ‘drugs’ for the purpose of the Act. The main aim of the Act is to prevent the sale of the substandard drugs, make sure high standards of the medical treatment. The goal would be compromised if essential medical or surgical treatment were allowed to be weakened. The framework convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC) is the first ever international treaty negotiated under the auspices of the world Health Organization(who) adopted in 2003 and enforced in 2005. The Main objective is to reduce the tobacco consumption and exposure to tobacco smoke globally for improving public health and atmosphere. The FCTC encourage states to increase taxes on tobacco products to discourage use, helps to promote awareness and education programs. The institutional mechanism and monitoring to eliminate illicit trade in tobacco products (2012). As of now, FCTC has around 182 countries which covers the 90% of the world’s population. India amended FCTC on 5th February 2004 which has been an active participant in implementing its guidelines. On the based on FCTC principles, India enacted the enacted the cigarettes and other tobacco products Act (COPTA) 2003, which includes the advertisement, trade and consumption of tobacco. FCTC also faces hurdles such as tobacco companies often use lobbying, litigation, misinformation campaigns and front groups to dela and control the tobacco laws. In many countries, especially low- and middle-income nations, tobacco control is seen as political priority due to competing high public heath demands. Sometimes politicians themselves have vested interests in the sector of tobacco sector which leads to conflicts of interest. The rise of e-cigarettes, vapes and heated tobacco products (HTPs) has created regulatory uncertainty. In some societies, tobacco use is deeply ingrained in culture, rituals or social customs making the changes in behaviour. To overcome these hurdles, a renewed global commitment is essential who ensures strong political backing, cross sector collaboration, industry accountability and sustainable public health investment because FCTC plays an important role in several domestic cases concerning tobacco control.
Ultimately, even the most robust legal frameworks are ineffective without proper implementation and oversight. Courts, human rights commissions, and civil society organizations play a vital role in monitoring enforcement and providing recourse when rights are violated. In certain cases, international human rights mechanisms can also intervene when national governments fall short.
Public health is both a moral imperative and a legal responsibility. Ensuring that everyone, regardless of socioeconomic background or geographic location, has the right to live a healthy, dignified life requires visionary laws, inclusive policies, and unwavering political will. It is only through unified global and national efforts that we can build a resilient, equitable, and just health system for all.
The relationship between public health and human right is both interdependent. Public Health object is to promote and safeguard the well-being of the populations, while human right focus on the protection on individuals’ freedom and dignity. Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India[4]– The Supreme Court recognized the right to health as part of the right to life under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. This case laid the foundation for health as a fundamental right, compelling the state to ensure access to health services.
In Marri Yadamma vs. State of Andhra Pradesh[5] the deceased was an under trial who died of ‘congestive cardiac failure’. The Court held that under trials have the right to adequate medical care. The petition was filed by his spouse alleging negligence on part of the jail authorities and jail doctor in not providing appropriate treatment on time or referring to a specialist to determine the root cause of the ailment. The deceased was in the jail for a span of nearly six months during which he complained of abdominal pain, giddiness, vomiting etc. No effort was made to diagnose the cause of the deceased condition. On 25/1/1995 he complained of acute abdominal pain and was admitted from in the jail hospital. On 29/1/1995 he was shifted to a government hospital where he breathed his last on 30/1/1995. The post-mortem report showed that left and right lungs were congested and pleural cavities were normal, the heart was massively thickened and the aortic valves were fibrosed, aortic opening was dilated and the stomach was found empty. The cause of death was noted as being due to congestive cardiac failure associated with aortic valve disease. The High Court observed that the condition of the deceased at the time of his death was such that it could have developed over a period of time and not immediately. Thus, it was abundantly clear that no care or caution was taken by the Respondents to get the deceased examined by a Surgeon or a specialist, even though he had often complained of various ailments. Further, the high court cast doubts over the genuineness of the medical record maintained by the jail hospital. If the cause of death of the deceased was congestive cardiac failure associated with aortic valve, then the deceased must have complained about some form of heart ailment one or two months prior to his death. As the jail authorities had suppressed original records this fact remained in question. The high court stated that on arrest a prisoner merely loses his right to free movement. All other rights, including the right to medical treatment remains intact and it cannot be violated. The jail authorities had infringed a fundamental right of the deceased therefore the State was liable to compensate his widow as a public law remedy for an amount of Rs.2 lakh.
A balance relationship ensures that health policies are not for only advance population welfare but also respect, protect and fulfil the individual rights. The right to health is recognize in article 12 of the ICESCR that include healthcare, sanitation, safe drinking water and healthy working conditions. Protecting rights like freedom from discrimination, access to information and participation in decision-making leads to more effective and equitable health outcomes. A health population is better able to exercise and enjoy their civil, political, economic and social rights. There are the times when public health is in danger especially during emergencies, disease outbreaks or vaccination campaigns. Quarantine or lockdown is the best example which may restrict freedom of movement. Vaccinations become mandatory over bodily autonomy.
[1] AIR 2000
[2] AIR 1989 SUPP 1 SCC 644
[3] AIR 1963 SC 665
[4] AIR 1997 SC 2218
[5] AIR 2002 AP 164