New Delhi, Mar 26 (IANS): The Delhi High Court has held that it is well-settled that the right to life encompasses not only the preservation of physical existence but also "quality of life", which includes access to necessary medical treatment and healthcare services, and that right to health entails "entitlement to adequate healthcare facilities".

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma’s recent observation came while allowing liquor businessman Sameer Mahendru to be admitted to VNA Hospital, Delhi, for undergoing arthroscopic medial meniscal repair surgery, for a period of four weeks till April 20.

Mahendru is an accused in the money laundering case related to the alleged Delhi excise policy scam,

“While adjudicating matters concerning the health and wellbeing of an accused, the court is duty-bound to ensure that the accused’s right to life and the right to health is not violated. These basic human and fundamental rights are not contingent upon one being a common citizen or an accused, but are inherent to every individual, including those accused of crimes," the court observed.

However, Justice Sharma said that Mahendru shall continue to be in the custody of the Jail Superintendent concerned, who shall ensure that appropriate and adequate security is provided/deputed in the hospital since the accused will continue to remain in judicial custody though under treatment in the hospital.

The court had earlier denied interim bail to Mahendru, who had sought the relief as his and his wife's medical condition was severely compromised. The businessman had also claimed that he has to undergo knee surgery and his wife, who has developed post-surgery complications, has to be taken care of.

Justice Sharma, who heard the plea, had noted that Mahendru's medical condition cannot be categorised as a "life-threatening situation".

"... the knee surgery which is to be undergone by the applicant is not of such a nature which necessitates the applicant's release on interim bail only," the judge said. However, she had allowed him to be taken to the hospital for the surgery while in custody on the date concerned.

The court had asked him to file a fresh application after getting a new date for the surgery.

Perusing the documents filed, the court also noted that the date of surgery, which was initially fixed for February 26, has not been rescheduled.

"Thus, the applicant will be at liberty to get the date of the surgery rescheduled and thereafter, move a fresh application before this court for seeking appropriate directions," the court said.

Special counsel for the ED had also told the judge that he had no objection to Mahendru's prayer to get his surgery performed.

According to the prosecution, Mahendru was a significant beneficiary of excise policy violations, operating an alcoholic beverage manufacturing unit and holding wholesale and retail licences in his and his family’s names.