BREAKING BARRIERS JUDICIAL ACTIVISMS ROLE IN CHALLENGING HEALTHCARE TABOOS IN INDIA BY - PRERNA BEHERA
BREAKING BARRIERS: JUDICIAL
ACTIVISM'S ROLE IN CHALLENGING HEALTHCARE TABOOS IN INDIA
AUTHORED BY - PRERNA BEHERA
I.
SYNOPSIS
ABSTRACT
Breaking
social taboos, judicial activism has been a powerful factor in India's
healthcare sector in recent years. The Indian judiciary has played a pivotal
role in facilitating access to essential medical treatments and eliminating
cultural barriers that obstruct progress in this domain. This essay aims to
explore the ways in which judicial activism impacts Indian healthcare practices
and taboos in society. This essay will examine key court rulings, such as those
that support sexual and reproductive health, to demonstrate the court's
revolutionary impact on the creation of healthcare policy. It will also examine
any limitations or problems associated with judicial activism in order to
provide a comprehensive understanding of how it impacts the dismantling of
social taboos in India.
KEYWORDS
Healthcare,
judicial activism, social taboos, cultural norms, discrimination
LITERATURE REVIEW
1. Amit Bindal,
"Judicial Activism and the Right to Health in India", National
University of Juridical Sciences Law Review, 2014
In
his work, Bindal examines the Indian judiciary's role in advancing the right to
health, highlighting the Supreme Court's crucial role in advancing and
upholding this fundamental freedom. Bindal discusses significant rulings that
have broadened the definition of the right to health, guaranteeing that
individuals may obtain essential drugs, guaranteeing healthcare to underserved
populations, and protecting the rights of persons with stigmatised illnesses.
He acknowledges the ongoing challenges in securing this right for all Indians,
but also underlines the need for ongoing legal effort in addition to more
extensive social initiatives.
2. Shubankar
Dam, “Public Interest Litigation and Social Transformation in India: A Critical
Appraisal”, National University of Juridical Sciences Law Review, 2014
The
role of public interest litigation (PIL) in promoting social change and busting
myths around healthcare is examined in this study by Shubhankar Dam. Dam
acknowledges PIL's potential for change, especially when it comes to giving
underprivileged groups more influence. He does, however, highlight some of its
potential drawbacks, including the potential for PIL to be abused and
overworked courts. Dam also questions the democratic legitimacy of PIL,
claiming that in order for it to be successful, it must reconcile respect for
democratic processes with social justice.
3. Susmita Rath,
Prof. Dr. Shashikala Gurpur, Dr. Manika Kamthan. “Breaking Menstrual
Stereotypes to Improve Menstrual Health”, Solid State Technology, 2020
The
current study investigates the presence of discriminatory menstruation customs
that continuously worsen women's menstrual health in India. The core of this
analysis is the 'Untouchability' concept used by Justice D.Y. Chandrachud in
the Sabrimala Temple case. In addition to violating a person's right to health,
these traditional practises, which are controlled by a patriarchal worldview,
subject women to unfair treatment in society, the economy, and politics.
Women's constitutional rights and freedoms in India are violated by the culture
of demeaning femininity promoted by Indian religions. The research
4. Sheena
Asthana & Robert Oostvogels, “The social construction of male
‘homosexuality’ in India: implications for HIV transmission and prevention”,
Social science and medicine, 2001
The
relativity of sexual norms and the challenges of transferring Western ideas of
sexuality to various socio-cultural contexts have gained increasing attention
during the past 20 years. Studies of men who have sex with men (MSM) reveal
that the methods in which male-male sexual activity is molded and constructed
vary greatly from place to place, which best expresses this viewpoint.
Despite this, the term "homosexuality" is nevertheless seen as
unproblematic in discussions about HIV/AIDS. This paper, which is based on
an ethnographic study conducted in Madras, identifies key distinctions
between India and the West, not only in terms of MSM sexual identities and
circuits but also in terms of their sexual relationships and behaviours.
5. Dan A.
Chekki, “Social Stratification and Trends of Social Mobility in Modern India”,
Sociologus, 1970
This
research studies the dynamics of social mobility in India to gain a better
understanding of the connections between traditional caste-based hierarchies
and new opportunities for upward mobility. The article highlights the
increasing upward mobility of lower castes, particularly among those who have
access to opportunities for employment and education in urban regions. Greater
opportunities for social interactions beyond traditional caste boundaries and
career diversification exist in urban environments, which may facilitate upward
mobility. While admitting the presence of social injustices and the
transformative potential of modernity, Chekki contends that India is moving
towards a more flexible and open social structure.
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM
HYPOTHESIS
Although
judicial activism promotes healthcare in India, its success is dependent on
social transparency, the court's flexibility, and strong support networks. It
is critical to investigate this interaction in order to improve healthcare
access and equity.
RESEARCH QUESTION
1.
How much has judicial activism
affected India's efforts to eliminate societal stigmas around healthcare?
2.
How have court rulings affected
social attitudes and behaviours in India around delicate healthcare issues?
3.
What are the drawbacks and possible
unexpected effects of using judicial activism as a weapon to confront societal
taboos in India's healthcare system?
4.
What are the main ways that judicial
activism affects public opinion and policy improvements in India's healthcare
system?
RESEARCH OBJECTIVE
1)
To analyse the practical impact of
court orders on social taboo eradication, including changes to healthcare
practices, legislation, and societal attitudes.
2)
To grasp how judicial activism's
legal precedents have influenced society's attitudes and actions regarding
healthcare-related social taboos.
3)
To investigate the legal arguments,
outcomes, and repercussions of key court cases that have called into question
cultural taboos in healthcare.
4)
To identify persisting social taboos
that have a substantial impact on Indian healthcare practices and access.
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
The
research technique employed in the construction of this project is
"doctrinal research methodology," which includes material from books,
articles, journals, and documents related to the problem.
SCOPE AND LIMITATIONS
This
research will look at specific court decisions that have been critical in
dispelling cultural taboos, focusing on the legal arguments, results, and
subsequent ramifications. This study is confined to resources available on the
Internet.
CHAPTERIZATION
1. Synopsis
2. Introduction
3. Overview of
Social Taboos in Healthcare in India
4. Case Studies
5. Impact of
Judicial Activism & International legal frameworks
6. Criticisms
and Limitations
7. Conclusion
8. Bibliography
DEFINITION OF JUDICIAL
ACTIVISM
Judicial activism in the legal system refers to
judges' propensity to read and apply the law differently from its intended
meaning and intent. It means that judges must actively influence public policy
issues and use their judgement to challenge established laws and practices.
This tactic usually entails the courts taking the lead in addressing societal
challenges and promoting equality and justice. In India's healthcare system,
judicial activism has been particularly important in dismantling societal
taboos that limit access to essential medical services. By using constitutional
principles, judges have upheld the right to health and tried to eradicate
discriminatory practices, which has resulted in beneficial changes to
healthcare laws and procedures[1].
IMPORTANCE OF CHALLENGING
SOCIAL TABOOS IN HEALTHCARE
Recognising the importance of
breaking these taboos as well as the impact of judicial activism on social
taboos in Indian healthcare is crucial. Breaking societal taboos is crucial to
improving healthcare quality and access. By addressing and removing these
taboos, healthcare providers may help create a more inviting environment where
patients feel comfortable receiving the necessary treatment. Furthermore,
breaking down societal taboos encourages the transmission of correct,
scientifically-supported health information, which in turn increases awareness
and aids in disease and condition prevention[2].
This is especially important in India, where societal stigmas and taboos can
make it difficult for people to seek medical attention regarding reproductive
and sexual health. Therefore, healthcare professionals and policy-makers may
help by aggressively tackling these taboos and contribute to a healthier
society overall.
IMPACT OF JUDICIAL ACTIVISM
In India, judicial activism has had a
considerable influence on breaking down societal taboos in the field of health
care. The judiciary has recognized the need of addressing sensitive
healthcare issues that have long been associated with stigma in Indian society.
For example, in an effort to reduce the stigma attached to mental health, the
Supreme Court of India recently ordered the decriminalization of suicide attempts. This decision emphasizes the importance of having empathy and
compassion for those who are struggling with mental health issues and
encourages people to seek medical assistance without fear of legal
ramifications. Judicial safeguarding women's access to safe abortion procedures
has also been a major contribution to breaking social taboos related to
reproductive health[3]. These
programmes have not only empowered women to make informed decisions regarding
their reproductive health but have also contributed to the advancement and
inclusivity of India's healthcare system. The significant impact of judicial
activism in shattering social taboos in the healthcare industry has led to a
more humane and egalitarian society.
Judicial activism was employed in the
well-known case of Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India[4] to
question social taboos related to healthcare in India. The Supreme Court of
India overturned laws from the colonial past that criminalised homosexuality
and decriminalised consenting to same-sex relationships in this ruling. The
court's decision signalled a sea change for LGBTQ rights in India and sparked a
national conversation on the importance of inclusion and equality in
healthcare. This judicial action not only challenged the stigma that society
attaches to homosexuality, but it also demonstrated how important it is for
medical personnel to treat patients of all sexual orientations with respect and
without prejudice. It also demonstrated the judiciary's dedication to defending
the basic freedoms guaranteed by the Indian Constitution and advancing a more
inclusive and progressive society.
HEALTHCARE IN INDIA
The topic of menstruation cleanliness
is one of the major social taboos in Indian healthcare. Menstruation, a normal
biological function, nevertheless carries shame and is veiled in secrecy, which
can have a serious negative impact on women's health. The transmission of
infections and illnesses is facilitated by a lack of access to hygienic
sanitary facilities and appropriate menstrual hygiene products[5].
Gender disparities are further aggravated by cultural norms and practises
around menstruation, which frequently prohibit girls and women from fully
engaging in social and educational activities. The subject of mental health is
another persistent societal taboo since it is still incredibly under-discussed
and stigmatised. Instead of being acknowledged as real medical problems, mental
illnesses are frequently misinterpreted and linked to supernatural origins or
individual flaws. Consequently, those who have mental health concerns confront
enormous challenges, perpetuating the cycle of social stigma and suffering[6].
EXAMPLES OF SOCIAL TABOOS
RELATED TO HEALTHCARE IN INDIA
The stigma surrounding mental health
is one instance of a societal taboo associated with healthcare in India. Many
people suffer in silence because mental diseases have traditionally been linked
to shame and disgrace. People are sometimes reluctant to seek the appropriate
therapy for mental health concerns because they believe that doing so is a show
of weakness or instability[7].
The taboo around talking about and addressing sexual and reproductive health is
another example. Particularly in rural regions, themes like menstruation,
contraception, and sexually transmitted diseases are frowned upon. Access
to appropriate treatment and preventative measures is hampered by a lack of
knowledge and education on these issues, which also reinforces myths and
prejudices[8]. These societal taboos have an adverse
impact on people's general well-being because they keep them from getting the
help and healthcare they require.
NEGATIVE CONSEQUENCES OF
SOCIAL TABOOS ON HEALTHCARE ACCESS AND OUTCOMES
Healthcare access and results for
people and communities are significantly harmed by social taboos. Inadequate
public health responses, barriers to reproductive health services, impacts on
vulnerable and marginalised populations, increased risky behaviours, delayed
seeking of care, avoidance of preventative measures, increased risky
behaviours, mental health neglect, social alienation, and reduced quality of
life are a few of these[9].
Delaying medical attention can lead
to disease progression and worse health outcomes. It is possible to deter
people from forgoing preventative treatments like immunisations and early
illness diagnosis. The stigmatisation of some health conditions may also contribute
to an increase in risky behaviours[10].
Stigmatisation of mental health disorders can make mental health neglect worse.
Lack of support networks brought on by social alienation and isolation can have
an impact on one's mental, emotional, and physical health. In healthcare
settings, stigmatisation and discrimination can result in poor treatment,
inaccurate diagnosis, and inadequate treatment. Access to necessary healthcare
treatments may also be hampered by stigmatised reproductive health services.
Due to interlocking societal taboos, vulnerable and marginalised communities,
such as LGBTQ+ people or members of particular castes, may experience
additional difficulties in getting access to healthcare[11].
1.
LEGAL
RECOGNITION OF THIRD GENDER - NATIONAL LEGAL SERVICES AUTHORITY (NALSA) V.
UNION OF INDIA (2014)[12]
The 2014 National Legal Services
Authority (NALSA) v. Union of India lawsuit was a significant turning point in
the fight for transgender rights in India. The action tackled the systemicized
prejudice and exclusion of transgender individuals, who had been deprived of
fundamental rights and legal safeguards for an extended period. The National
Legal Services Authority launched a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in an
effort to change the legal landscape for transgender individuals. The Supreme
Court of India upheld transgender people's fundamental rights, including the
acknowledgment of their status as a third gender, which is different from the
traditional binary divisions between male and female.
The NALSA verdict required
affirmative action laws to address barriers that transgender persons faced
while applying for jobs, schooling, and other services.It asked for legal
recognition for transgender persons as well as the same rights and benefits
accorded to other citizens. The court stressed that in order to eliminate
discrimination and create a friendly environment for transgender individuals,
strong action is required.
The NALSA ruling established a
crucial legal precedent that influenced later rulings and Indian policy
concerning transgender rights. In conclusion, this case marked a sea change in
the country's attitude towards inclusiveness and human rights.
In India, tuberculosis (TB) has
historically been challenging to treat and manage due to social stigmas and
taboos. In order to address these issues, judicial activism has proven
essential. The case of Shobha Shukla v. Union of India & Others (2018)
highlights the significance of judicial activism in breaking social taboos
associated with tuberculosis in India[13].
The Delhi High Court has awarded the government several directions that mandate
the successful implementation of the National Tuberculosis Elimination
Programme (NTEP). Public awareness efforts, patient rights protection, provider
responsibility, and patient rights protection were among these mandates[14].
Raising awareness and lessening the
stigma associated with the condition, the court decisions in the Shobha Shukla
case have altered the way tuberculosis is handled in India. Additionally, there
has been a call for improved access to medical care and protection of TB
patients' rights. This case demonstrates the tremendous power of judicial
activism in breaking social taboos and pushing for legislative changes to
address urgent public health concerns, such as tuberculosis in India. By
utilising the legal system, advocates and activists may promote more informed,
inclusive, and rights-based approaches to healthcare and wellbeing.
The People's Union for Civil
Liberties (PUCL) v. Union of India case[15] from 2002 was significant in India's
fight against HIV/AIDS. The action, which focused on the right to health,
challenged the denial of affected individuals' access to affordable HIV/AIDS
treatment. In a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) that was presented to the
Supreme Court, the People's Union for Civil Liberties underlined how urgent it
is to ensure that HIV treatment is accessible as a fundamental right.
The Supreme Court's ruling in the
PUCL case was a watershed in Indian public health. The ruling established a
number of significant points, such as the recognition of the right to health as
a fundamental right, the provision of affordable access to drugs, the
authorization of compulsory licencing and manufacturing of generic drugs, the
assurance of antiretroviral therapy (ART) availability, and the emphasis
on nondiscrimination and stigma reduction.
The case of PUCL v. Union of India
holds noteworthy implications for HIV treatment accessibility and public health
in India. By restating the right to health as a fundamental right and creating
a strong legal precedent for any future legal conflicts affecting public health,
it created a precedent-setting legal precedent. People with HIV/AIDS now have
far greater access to life-saving care, especially those who otherwise couldn't
afford it, thanks to the requirement requiring the provision of free ART. The
decision to require licencing and the emergence of generic medications made
essential treatments—not just for HIV/AIDS but also for other critical health
conditions—more affordable[16].
The
Common Cause v. Union of India (2018)[17]
ruling in 2018 aimed to break down social taboos related to end-of-life care
and the need for terminally ill patients in India to get compassionate,
dignified treatment. The case focused on the right to die with dignity and the
need for appropriate palliative care for patients with terminal illnesses.
A
Public Interest Litigation (PIL) was launched before the Supreme Court by
Common Cause, a public interest organisation, to protect the right to a
dignified death and access to palliative treatment. The Supreme Court's ruling
identified the freedom to refuse treatment and the right to receive palliative
care as components of the right to die with dignity.
The
decision enables individuals to create "living wills," also known as
"advance directives," outlining the medical treatment they choose to
receive in the event that they are terminally sick and unable to communicate
their desires. Guidelines for the withdrawal of life support in cases of incurable
terminal diseases were established by the court to guarantee that this
treatment is performed compassionately and in compliance with legal and ethical
standards.
The
court's ruling has far-reaching implications for India's right to a dignified
death and its capacity to obtain palliative care. It reduced societal taboos
around talking about death and dying and gave explicit legal and ethical rules
for the cessation of life support. Additionally, it recognised the person's
autonomy in choosing their own end-of-life care.
In
the landmark 2008 decision in Baby Manji Yamada v. Union of India[18],
the Indian Supreme Court tackled the social stigmas surrounding assisted
reproduction and surrogacy. The case included Baby Manji Yamada, an Indian
surrogate who was born in Japan; but, due to legal complications, her
biological parents remained unknown. The event made clear how important it is
to have laws and rules regarding surrogacy.
The
Supreme Court of India ruled in the case that regulations and legal frameworks
for surrogacy agreements are necessary to protect the interests of all parties
involved, including intended parents, surrogates, and the child. The government
was directed by the court to ensure that Baby Manji Yamada, who was stateless
at the time, was granted the appropriate citizenship and legal standing,
emphasising that the child's welfare should always come first in surrogacy
arrangements.
The
case broke social taboos and had significant legal implications for surrogacy.
It promoted better understanding and awareness of assisted reproduction in
India by drawing attention to the need for legal clarity and regulation of
surrogacy agreements. The case also aided in the public and judicial challenge
of surrogacy-related social norms.
Other
instances in which judicial activism has had a significant impact on societal
taboos in healthcare include Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab (1996)[19]
and Nikhil Dey v. Union of India (2006)[20].
In the former, the Indian Supreme Court decriminalised attempted suicide,
promoting compassionate mental health care and eradicating the stigma attached
to mental illness and suicide. In the latter, the Supreme Court modified
abortion laws and policies by highlighting women's right to reproductive
autonomy and choice. Through expanding access to lawful and safe treatments,
these initiatives offered women greater autonomy over their reproductive
health. These kinds of legal actions have greatly reduced the stigmas that
society attaches to mental illness and suicide, as well as fostering greater
empathy for those who are going through difficult times emotionally.
JUDICIAL ACTIVISM AS A
CATALYST FOR SOCIAL CHANGE
A significant social change in
India's healthcare system has also been largely attributed to judicial
activism. By aggressively challenging societal taboos, the court has played a
crucial role in furthering equality and guaranteeing that people who are
excluded in society have access to healthcare services. The court's
intervention in reproductive rights matters, for instance, has granted women
greater autonomy and access to safe and approved abortions. By addressing these
delicate and sometimes ignored issues, the court has demonstrated that it is a
powerful agent for social change and the removal of cultural barriers. This has
led to the development of a more progressive and inclusive healthcare system in
India.
Awareness and the transmission of standards
are necessary if Indian courts are to comprehend and apply legislation in line
with international norms, perhaps leading to more progressive decisions. Legal
precedent and interpretation may lend support to a certain stance, leading to
court decisions that are compliant with international standards. The case for
judicial activity can be strengthened by advocacy and civil society involvement
because they offer professional advice, academic study, and legal arguments
based on universal human rights principles[21].
Judicial rulings based on
international legal norms may also serve as a catalyst for legislative and
policy reforms. Courts may order the government to establish or change
legislation in order to comply with international standards, resulting in new
policies and regulations that challenge societal taboos, enhance access to
healthcare, and protect reproductive rights.
As individuals become more aware of
their rights and legal safeguards, public awareness and education may help to
change society views and lessen social taboos. In order to increase
accountability for the government and judiciary, international legal frameworks
may force India to report on its success in respecting healthcare and
reproductive rights.
INTERNATIONAL LEGAL FRAMEWORKS
International legal frameworks and
standards have a big impact on how the law is interpreted across the world,
especially in India.[22]
Here are some significant foreign legal frameworks that have helped eliminate
societal taboos in healthcare and shaped Indian courts' rulings:
1. Human Rights Universal Declaration
(UDHR):
The United Nations General Assembly
ratified the UDHR in 1948, outlining essential liberties and rights for every
individual. India's perspective on several healthcare concerns, such as the right
to health, non-discrimination, and access to medical treatment, has been
greatly influenced by this.
2. International Economic, Social, and
Cultural Rights Covenant (ICESCR):
India acknowledged the right to the
highest standard of physical and mental well-being when it ratified the ICESCR
in 1979. It has an impact on India's legal system in terms of access to
healthcare services and the availability of basic medical facilities.
3. International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights (ICCPR):
India ratified the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) in 1979. It addresses issues
such as individual autonomy and privacy as well as freedom from cruel, inhuman,
or degrading treatment. The way India sees issues like mental health, end-of-life
decisions, and reproductive rights has been impacted by these sections.
4. Convention on the Elimination of All
Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW):
India's stance on women's health and
reproductive rights has seen substantial shift since the country ratified CEDAW
in 1993. It covers topics including maternal mortality, family planning, and
access to reproductive healthcare.
5. Convention on the Rights of the Child
(CRC):
Children's rights are important,
especially those related to health, survival, and development. India ratified
the Convention on the Rights of the Child in 1992. It has affected India's
policy for immunisation, child healthcare, and protection against risky
behaviour.
6. Convention on the Rights of Persons
with Disabilities (CRPD):
India joined the Convention on the
Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) in 2007, which emphasizes the rights of individuals with
disabilities, especially those related to health, rehabilitation, and access to
healthcare services. It has altered India's approach to providing healthcare to
those with disabilities.
7. International Conference on
Population and Development (ICPD) Program of Action:
A wide range of topics pertaining to
reproductive health and rights were the focus of the 1994 ICPD. India's guiding
principles and suggestions have influenced the country's policies around family
planning, access to contraception, and reproductive healthcare.
8. United Nations Declaration on the
Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP):
Indigenous peoples are recognized as having rights under the UNDRIP,
including the right to healthcare and traditional medicine. Although it isn't
directly related to India, it is related to problems with indigenous
communities' access to healthcare.
In terms of healthcare and reproductive
rights, these international accords and legal frameworks provide a normative
foundation that influences India's legal and regulatory environment. Their
usage as points of reference by lawmakers and judges facilitates the creation
of legal interpretations and reforms aimed at breaking social taboos and
advancing rights-based healthcare.
Judicial activism has made great
strides in dismantling social taboos around healthcare in India, but it has
also been criticized and has certain limitations. Critics claim that judicial
involvement in the healthcare industry violates the separation of powers and
the legislative process. They contend that judges lack the expertise and
accountability necessary to make difficult decisions about complex healthcare
matters because they are not elected officials. Others assert that judicial
activism may result in legal ambiguity since it departs from recognized legal standards. Furthermore,
judicial activism's ability to break social taboos in the healthcare industry
is significantly influenced by the government's willingness to abide with court
decisions. Judicial activism may not be enough to modify healthcare practices permanently and dismantle deeply
rooted societal taboos without substantial government support and funding.
Therefore, it is essential to take into account the drawbacks and restrictions
of judicial activism in order to develop thorough and long-lasting strategies
for addressing societal taboos in healthcare[23].
OPPOSITION FROM
CONSERVATIVE GROUPS AND RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS
Challenging societal taboos in
healthcare in India has been hampered significantly by opposition from
conservative organizations and religious institutions. These organizations contend that judicial activism
damages the social fabric and undercuts traditional cultural values. They
perceive the judiciary's progressive stance as a restriction on their right to
practise their religion and their cultural customs. Conservative organizations and religious organizations frequently put a great deal of
political pressure on legislators and policymakers to stop the implementation
of court rulings that challenge societal taboos in healthcare[24].
Additionally, they promote their ideas and mobilize opposition to progressive judicial
interventions through media and public dialogue. Due to their persistent
opposition, judicial orders have often been unable to be implemented
effectively, which has slowed the development of healthcare policies that aim
to eliminate disparities.
IMPLEMENTATION CHALLENGES
AND RESISTANCE FROM HEALTHCARE PROVIDERS
The successful implementation of
judicial activism in breaking societal taboos in healthcare in India has been
hampered by resistance from healthcare practitioners. The profoundly ingrained
cultural and societal ideas that continue to be held by healthcare
professionals are one significant difficulty. Traditional values, patriarchal
norms, and religious beliefs could create opposition to change, which makes it difficult
for people to embrace and apply the new strategies that the judiciary has
advocated. Additionally, in order to meet the demands put out by the courts,
healthcare practitioners may encounter practical challenges including
ignorance, insufficient training, or a lack of resources[25].
Additionally, the hierarchical structure of healthcare facilities sometimes
discourages challenging authority, which makes challenging cultural norms
harder for practitioners. All of these elements contribute to the slow pace of
social issues being addressed.
NEED FOR COMPREHENSIVE
LEGISLATIVE REFORMS TO SUSTAIN CHANGE
In India, the influence of judicial
activism in addressing societal taboos around healthcare has resulted in
substantial social transformation. However, further legislative adjustments are
essential to maintain this development over the long term. Although judicial
activism might start the reform process by establishing precedents, it is up to
the legislature to pass complete laws. By confronting societal taboos in
healthcare, these laws can offer a framework for addressing and resolving the
complex problems that occur. Reforms to the law can help guarantee that the
changes brought about by judicial activism are institutionalized and integrated into the legal system.
Comprehensive legislative reforms can also include instructions for putting the
changes into practise and keeping track of them, guaranteeing their long-term
effectiveness[26].
It is impossible to overstate the
influence of judicial activism in dismantling societal taboos in India's
healthcare system.Over the years, the Indian court has played a pivotal role in
addressing a range of societal issues pertaining to healthcare, including
discrimination based on gender and the accessibility of healthcare for marginalized communities. Through progressive
rulings, the judiciary has dismantled deeply ingrained social taboos by
respecting people's inherent rights. In
addition, the courts have addressed sensitive cases including surrogacy, access
to abortion, and reproductive rights, empowering individuals to make informed
choices regarding their own bodies. All things considered, it's safe to say
that judicial activism has served as a catalyst for the removal of social
taboos related to healthcare and the implementation of urgently needed reforms
in Indian society.
In
conclusion, judicial activism has played a critical role in challenging social
norms within India's healthcare system. The court has used historic rulings and
progressive readings of the Constitution to protect the rights of marginalized
persons and address persistent issues with healthcare and social taboos.
Because of the Supreme Court's involvement in cases pertaining to gender
equality, reproductive rights, and access to healthcare services, significant
progress has been made in reducing social barriers. The judiciary's enforcement
of strict guidelines on medical ethics and promotion of diversity have paved
the way for a more equitable and considerate healthcare system. However, there
are still problems, and in order to preserve the values of equality and
dignity, the legal system needs to change to meet evolving social norms. However, it's critical to understand
that judicial activism cannot be the exclusive means of addressing cultural
taboos surrounding healthcare. Government agencies, medical professionals, and
members of civil society must work together to find comprehensive and
long-lasting solutions to these issues.
Judicial activism will therefore be
crucial to the development of healthcare in India in the future. Court
intervention has enabled a significant transformation in the healthcare sector
and significantly impacted social norms. Through its treatment of issues like
female sterilization and mental health, the court has paved the way for a more
inclusive and rights-based approach to healthcare. It's important to
understand, though, that judicial activism cannot solve every problem with
healthcare in the country on its own. It requires sustained efforts from the public
sector, medical experts, and society at large. Cooperative initiatives like
legislative changes, public awareness campaigns, and increased funding for
healthcare infrastructure are essential to ensuring a comprehensive and
equitable healthcare system for all Indians. We can only fully achieve the
promise of judicial activism to revolutionize the nation's healthcare system by
adopting a holistic strategy.
1)
—— ‘Antiretroviral Therapy’ (PAHO/WHO
| Pan American Health Organization)
accessed 15 October 2023
2)
—— ‘National TB elimination programme
- What has changed’ (PubMed Central (PMC))
3)
Abern L and Maguire K, ‘Breaking Down
Barriers to Transgender Health Care’ (2018) 131 Obstetrics & Gynecology 8S
accessed 15
October 2023
4)
A, ‘Judicial Activism - Definition,
Types, Examples, Prose & Cons’ (BYJUS, 10 November 2015)
5)
Andermann A, ‘Taking action on the
social determinants of health in clinical practice: a framework for health
professionals’ (PubMed Central (PMC), 6 December 2016)
6)
Baby Manji Yamada vs Union Of India
& Anr, Supreme Court, 29 September 2008, (2008) 13 SCC 518 (India)
7)
Common Cause v. Union of India,
Supreme Court, 9 March 2018, AIR 2018 SC 1665 (India)
8)
Dimitrov R, Jelen A and L’Etang J,
‘Taboos in health communication: Stigma, silence and voice’ (2022) 11(1) Public
Relations Inquiry 3
accessed 15 October 2023
9)
English TSE, ‘Close the tap : Mopping
the floor approach is not enough to end TB’ (The Sangai Express - Largest
Circulated NewsPaper in Manipur, 4 May 2023)
accessed 15 October 2023
10)
Jha H, ‘State Processes, Ideas, and
Institutional Change: The Case of the Right to Information Act in India1’
(2018) 91(2) Pacific Affairs 309
accessed 15 October 2023
11)
Knaak S, Mantler E and Szeto A,
‘Mental illness-related stigma in healthcare’ (2017) 30(2) Healthcare
Management Forum 111
accessed 15 October 2023
12)
Murtaza S, ‘Mental Health Still A
Taboo in the 21st Century India’ (reflections.live, 2 May 2022)
accessed 15 October 2023
13)
NALSA vs Union of India, Supreme
Court, 15 April 2014, 400 (India)
14)
Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India,
Supreme Court, 6 September 2018, 2018 INSC 790 (India)
15)
People's Union for Civil Liberties v.
Union of India, Supreme Court, 18 December 1996, SC 568 (India)
16)
Sanneving L and others, ‘Inequity in
India: the case of maternal and reproductive health’ (2013) 6(1) Global Health
Action 19145 accessed 15
October 2023
17)
Smt. Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab,
Supreme Court, 21 March 1996, 1996 AIR 946 (India)
18)
The Lancet Global Health, ‘Headway
and hindrances for sexual and reproductive health and rights’ (2020) 8(8) The
Lancet Global Health e973
accessed 15 October
2023
19)
Venkatesh B and others, ‘Perception
of stigma toward mental illness in South India’ (2015) 4(3) Journal of Family
Medicine and Primary Care 449
accessed 15 October 2023
20)
Wankhede R, ‘World Menstrual Hygiene
Day 2023: What are India’s challenges?’ (The Hindu, 28 May 2023)
accessed 15 October 2023
21)
—— ‘How Social Taboos in India Affect
Mental Health Treatment?’ (Samarpan Mental Health and Wellness)
accessed 15 October 2023
22)
1939- HH and J SN (eds), Social
change and modernity (University of California Press 1992)
23)
Boyd Williams N and others,
‘Challenging perceptions of socio-cultural rejection of a taboo technology:
Narratives of imagined transitions to domestic toilet-linked biogas in India’
(2022) 92 Energy Research & Social Science 102802
accessed 15 October 2023
24)
India. National Human Rights
Commission, A handbook on international human rights conventions (National
Human Rights Commission 2012)
25)
Nilsen ER and others, ‘Exploring
resistance to implementation of welfare technology in municipal healthcare
services – a longitudinal case study’ (2016) 16(1) BMC Health Services Research
accessed 15 October 2023
[1] Admin, ‘Judicial Activism - Definition, Types,
Examples, Prose & Cons’ (BYJUS, 10 November 2015)
[2] Roumen Dimitrov, Alenka Jelen and
Jacquie L’Etang, ‘Taboos in health communication: Stigma, silence and voice’
(2022) 11(1) Public Relations Inquiry 3,
accessed 15 October 2023.
[3] Anne Andermann, ‘Taking action on the social
determinants of health in clinical practice: a framework for health
professionals’ (PubMed Central (PMC), 6 December 2016)
[4] Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India, Supreme
Court, 6 September 2018, 2018 INSC 790 (India)
[5] Ruchita Wankhede, ‘World Menstrual
Hygiene Day 2023: What are India’s challenges?’ (The Hindu, 28 May 2023)
accessed 15 October 2023.
[6] Sameen Murtaza, ‘Mental Health
Still A Taboo in the 21st Century India’ (reflections.live, 2 May 2022)
accessed 15 October 2023.
[7] BhumikaT Venkatesh and others,
‘Perception of stigma toward mental illness in South India’ (2015) 4(3) Journal
of Family Medicine and Primary Care 449
accessed 15 October 2023.
[8] Linda Sanneving and others,
‘Inequity in India: the case of maternal and reproductive health’ (2013) 6(1)
Global Health Action 19145
accessed 15 October 2023.
[9] The Lancet Global Health, ‘Headway
and hindrances for sexual and reproductive health and rights’ (2020) 8(8) The
Lancet Global Health
e973 accessed 15 October
2023.
[10] Stephanie Knaak, Ed Mantler and
Andrew Szeto, ‘Mental illness-related stigma in healthcare’ (2017) 30(2)
Healthcare Management Forum 111
accessed 15 October 2023.
[11] Lauren Abern and Karla Maguire,
‘Breaking Down Barriers to Transgender Health Care’ (2018) 131 Obstetrics &
Gynecology 8S
accessed 15 October 2023.
[12] NALSA vs Union of India, Supreme
Court, 15 April 2014, 400 (India).
[13] The Sangai Express English, ‘Close the tap :
Mopping the floor approach is not enough to end TB’ (The Sangai Express -
Largest Circulated NewsPaper in Manipur, 4 May 2023)
accessed 15 October 2023.
[14] ‘National TB elimination programme - What has
changed’ (PubMed Central (PMC))
[15] People's Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of
India, Supreme Court, 18 December 1996, SC 568 (India)
[16]‘Antiretroviral Therapy’ (PAHO/WHO
| Pan American Health Organization)
accessed 15 October 2023.
[17] Common Cause v. Union of India, Supreme Court,
9 March 2018, AIR 2018 SC 1665 (India)
[18] Baby Manji Yamada vs Union Of India & Anr,
Supreme Court, 29 September 2008, (2008) 13 SCC 518 (India).
[19] Smt. Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab,
Supreme Court, 21 March 1996, 1996 AIR 946 (India).
[20] Himanshu Jha, ‘State Processes,
Ideas, and Institutional Change: The Case of the Right to Information Act in
India1’ (2018) 91(2) Pacific Affairs 309,
accessed 15 October 2023.
[21] ‘How Social Taboos in India Affect
Mental Health Treatment?’ (Samarpan Mental Health and Wellness)
accessed 15 October 2023.
[22] India. National Human Rights
Commission, A handbook on international human rights conventions (National
Human Rights Commission 2012).
[24] Natalie Boyd Williams and others,
‘Challenging perceptions of socio-cultural rejection of a taboo technology:
Narratives of imagined transitions to domestic toilet-linked biogas in India’
(2022) 92 Energy Research & Social Science 102802,
accessed 15 October 2023.
[25] Etty R Nilsen and others,
‘Exploring resistance to implementation of welfare technology in municipal
healthcare services – a longitudinal case study’ (2016) 16(1) BMC Health
Services Research accessed
15 October 2023.
[26] Haferkamp Hans 1939- and Smelser
Neil J (eds), Social change and modernity (University of California Press
1992).