HC reserves order on Gadchiroli blast accused's plea for transfer to hospice

Saying the fundamental right to protection of life and liberty guaranteed by Article 21 of the constitution applied to everyone including prisoners the Bombay High Court on Tuesday said it will consider alleged Maoist leader Nirmala Uppugantis plea seeking transfer from prison to a hospice from all angles permissible under the lawA bench of Justices SS Shinde and NJ Jamadar reserved its order on Uppugantis plea seeking such transferAn accused in the 2019 Gadchiroli IED blast case Uppuganti had filed a plea in the HC earlier this month seeking that she be shifted from the Byculla womens prison to a hospice as she is terminally ill with cancerAt least 15 security personnel of the Gadchiroli Quick Response Team and one civilian were killed in an IED explosion triggered by Naxals in Maharashtras Gadchiroli district on May 1 2019In her plea filed through senior counsel Yug Chaudhry and advocate Payoshi Roy Uppuganti asked to be shifted to a hospice for palliative care so that she will be properly taken care of during her final daysOn Tuesday Roy told the bench that Uppugantis had metastatic cancer that had spread to her lungs and other organs She said that Uppuganti an undertrial had reached stage four of cancer and deserved adequate medical care in her last days of lifeThe states counsel Sangeeta Shinde however opposed Uppugantis pleaAlso read Bombay High Court asks ailing accused in naxal blast case to amend plea and seek bailShinde told the HC that Uppuganti was accused of a serious offence She said Uppuganti was able to move on her own and had been provided with the help of two other inmates to take care of her in the prisonThe government counsel further said that as per the advice of doctors the state prison authorities were taking Uppuganti to the Tata Memorial Cancer Care Hospital in Mumbai three times a week for treatmentRoy however told the HC that Uppuganti was undergoing radiation and chemotherapy merely to alleviate her suffering and there was no cure for her advanced stage of cancerRoy reiterated that Uppuganti should be allowed to be shifted to a hospice to spend the last few days of her life and that she be permitted to meet her husband who is also her coaccused in the case and currently in judicial custodyAt this the bench said that judges are also humans and they would consider what was permissible within the law in the case of the petitionerYou should be optimistic Why are you restricting her life to last few days She may live longer First we are humans then we are judges the HC saidAt the cost of repetition Article 21 applies to everyone prisoners also There is n number of judgements Certainly discretion has to be used and we cannot go beyond the law but we will consider all angles the bench said while closing all arguments and reserving its orderThis story has been sourced from a third party syndicated feed agencies Midday accepts no responsibility or liability for its dependability trustworthiness reliability and data of the text Midday managementmiddaycom reserves the sole right to alter delete or remove without notice the content in its absolute discretion for any reason whatsoever