Skip to main content

On selecting an option from the following Language drop-down list, the language of the content will change accordingly.

    Text Size:  Smaller text size Medium text size Larger text size  | 

    Contrast Scheme:  Standard View High Contrast View  | 

    Screen Reader
    SLIC, Socio-Legal Information Center.
    • Mail
    • Print
    • PDF

    Petition filed against arbitrary denial of Mother and Child Protection Card

    For Decorative Purposes.
    Image used for representational purposes only.
    Date : 16/07/2017

    Case title: Anami Sobor Vs State of Assam & 5 Others; WP(C) No. 6079 of 2016; Gauhati High Court

    Synopsis: The Petitioner is a resident of Dhullie Tea Garden in Dhullie, Biswanath, Assam and is currently six months’ pregnant. She belongs to an extremely poor family and her husband is employed at Dhullie Tea Garden in Biswanath, Assam. She has not yet received her Mother and Child Protection Card (MCP) under National Rural Health Mission. This has made it difficult to keep track of the healthcare facilities availed by her and also to identify any risks to her health. The arbitrary denial of a Mother and Child Protection Card to the petitioner is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner is anemic as per a blood test was done at Pabhoi State Dispensary. Consequently, her feet are swollen and she has difficulty walking. She has not received adequate treatment for it. Also, she had to pay Rs. 50 for the blood test. These reflect a violation of Janai Suraksha Yojana (JSY) and Janani Shishu Suraksha Karyakram (JSSK) schemes of the Government.
    Further, the petitioner has not received the benefits as provided by the National Food Security Act, 2013 which is a violation of the Act. Neither does she possess a Ration Card and thereby cannot avail of the benefits of the National Food Security Act, 2013, i.e. foodgrains at subsidized rates.
    The above-mentioned facts pose a serious threat to the life and health of the Petitioner, which is a violation of Article 21 of the Constitution. Also, it has led to a huge financial burden on the petitioner and her husband when they possess very limited means. The petitioner approaches this Court seeking its intervention by directing the respondents to ensure the issue of MCP card and providing her with proper healthcare to negate any threat to her health and life as well as to the child in her womb. Also, the petitioner seeks the help of the court to secure her entitlements as provided by the National Food Security Act, 2013.

    Status (In court): Disposed of off after issuing of MCP card to petitioner. State also asked to pay Rs. 6000 to the petitioner under IGMSY holding that IGMSY is no longer limited to 53 districts.

    Description: Precedents sighted:
    1) Francis Coralie Mullin Vs. Union Territory of Delhi [1981(1) SCC 608]
    2) Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India and Ors, [AIR 1984 SC 802]
    3) Consumer Education and Research Centre Vs. The Union of India (1995)
    4) Paschim Banga Khet Mazdoor Samiti and Ors. Vs. Union of India [(1996) 4 SCC 37]
    5) Sandesh Bansal vs. Union of India & Ors.,[W.P. (C) 9061/2008]

    0

    Related Articles

    Slideshow - Related Post

    Contact Us

    HUMAN RIGHTS LAW NETWORK

    Socio-Legal Information Center, 576, Masjid Road, Jungpura, New Delhi - 110014

    +91-11-24374501, +91-11-24379855, +91-11-24374502(Fax)

    contact@hrln.org

    Follow us on

    • facebook
    • google plus
    • twitter
    • linkedin
    • instagram
    • youtube
    Back To Top