Varavara Rao’s critical condition may relapse if sent back to Taloja: Senior Advocates Anand Grover and Indira Jaising to Bombay High Court

Appearing before the Bombay High Court today, Senior Advocates Anand Grover and Indira Jaising pressed for the release of Bhima Koregaon accused Dr. Varavara Rao from his detention in Taloja Central Prison..The lawyers expressed the apprehension that the medical condition of Rao may relapse to a critical state if he is sent back to Taloja Central Prison, and the decision to do so would be against his fundamental right to health..The Bench of Justices SS Shinde and Manish Pitale was hearing the application filed by Rao seeking bail on medical grounds along with the plea filed by his wife Pendyala Hemlatha highlighting the violation of Rao’s fundamental right to health by State and jail authorities..Senior Advocate Anand Grover began his submissions by stating that the Taloja Prison hospital will be ill-equipped to deal with Rao's critical condition if and when he relapses to his previous critical state. .Assuming that Rao relapses and requires to be admitted to a hospital thereafter, Grover argued that the same would lead to burdening the public exchequer. He said,“We do not want the public exchequer to be used for this always. Especially when there are two doctors in his house. His daughter and son-in-law are doctors.”.To substantiate his argument on how a lengthy trial will be difficult for an unfit 82-year-old, Grover informed the Court that the trial was yet to begin as the charges were yet to be framed. Even after trial starts, 200 witnesses have to be examined. .Grover concluded his arguments by submitting that a bare perusal of the restriction on grant of bail under Section 43D(5) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act showed that there was no bar on the Court to grant bail under Section 437 (bail in case of non-bailable offence) of the Code of Criminal Procedure on medical grounds..Senior Advocate Indira Jaising submitted that Rao's condition of detention was cruel, inhuman and degrading. .She relied upon various judgments of the Supreme Court and European Courts on Human Rights to contend:That under-trial prisoners do not lose their fundamental rights while in prisonThatthe right to health and dignity was a facet of right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.Her argument was that Rao's detention served no penological purpose given his age and uncertainty of completion of trial, since the purpose of detention is to reform a person and put him back in the society..Jaising contended that the reason behind detaining Rao was on the apprehension that he may tamper with the witnesses or he may flee. She said,"In this case, the chargesheet has been filed, so no tampering with evidence or witness can happen. And the accused cannot even walk!".Jaising concluded her arguments by bringing the Court's attention to three international conventions which spoke about the human rights of prisoners which was binding for India. She was referring to provisions under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, all of which India is a signatory to..After both counsel completed their submissions, the Chief Public Prosecutor stated that subject to the arguments of Additional Solicitor General Anil Singh, he was instructed to make a statement before the Court.."Rao will be shifted to prison ward in JJ Hospital. And he will be given all care. His family members will be allowed to visit subject to the protocols and the treatment which is given in Nanavati Hospital will continue."