Delhi High Court Calls Tihar Jail Chief for Failing to Give Court-Ordered Medical Help to PMLA Accused, Violating Basic Rights.

The Delhi High Court has ordered the Superintendent of Tihar Jail to appear in court at the next hearing to explain why there has been a failure to follow orders for providing medical help to a PMLA accused. The applicant complained that, despite previous court orders, the jail and the relevant department did not offer the necessary medical assistance. Justice Chandra Dhari Singh stated that, although the applicant is accused of serious money laundering, he still has the right to receive proper medical care, which cannot be denied by any authority under the Constitution of India.

The court had instructed the jail authorities and the relevant department to take the applicant to the hospital. Due to their failure to comply, the court required the Jail Superintendent to submit an affidavit detailing the reasons for this non-compliance. The respondent argued that the affidavit from the Joint Director of the department demonstrated their genuine efforts, claiming that any mistakes were not intentional. However, upon reviewing the affidavits, the court noted that the Jail Superintendent had misunderstood the previous orders, and there was no willful compliance with the court’s directives. The court found that the jail authorities had not properly followed the orders and instead formed a medical board, which further delayed the applicant’s treatment.

This Court views the willful disobedience of its orders very seriously. It believes that ignoring such directions is unacceptable, especially when there are major concerns about a detainee’s health. The Court expressed disappointment that the Jail authorities have not taken the applicant’s medical condition seriously, which violates the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution. The Court has ordered the Jail Superintendent to appear before it on November 26, 2024, to explain this non-compliance. Additionally, the Court granted the applicant interim bail for 10 days, provided he submits a personal bond of Rs 1 lakh.

Cause Title: Aditya Krishna v. The Directorate Of Enforcement [Case No.- BAIL APPLN. 3464/2024] Appearance:
Petitioner: Senior Advocate Siddharth Aggarwal, Advocates Tanya Agarwal & Arshiya Ghosh Respondents: Special Counsel for Ed Manish Jain, Advocates Sougata Ganguly, Snehal Sharda and Gulnaz Khan