Skip to main content

Why delay in implementing Rajasthan health rights law?, asks Jan Swasthya Abhiyan

By A Representative 

The Jan Swasthya Abhiyan (JSA) Rajasthan chapter, in a letter to Chief Minister Ashok Gehlot, endorsed by more than 70 organisations and networks, has demanded framing and notification of rules to the Rajasthan Right to Health Act 2022, wondering why the law has not yet begun being implemented.
JSA regretted, a high level committee under the chairpersonship of Dr SK Sarin, director, Institute of Liver and Biliary Science, was constituted by the government in July this year to frame the rules, “yet there has been no progress in this regard.”
Expressing concern regarding delay in framing and notification of the rules for the Act, putting to question the State government’s intent to implement the Act in its true spirit, JSA demanded that the process be expedited and the rules be framed at the earliest, as in the absence of it the Act remains only on papers and people continue to remain deprived of the various rights and provisions stipulated under it.
It said, the rules must be framed and notified before the code of conduct for the upcoming elections come into being.
The State health rights Act made Rajasthan the first State in India to give every resident the right to avail free Out Patient Department (OPD) services and In Patient Department (IPD) services at all public health facilities. Additionally, similar healthcare services are sought to be provided free of cost at selected private facilities.
Critics said, the Act does not mention whether private healthcare professionals will be reimbursed by the government. Claimed non-profit PRS Legislative Research, "If the government does not reimburse the cost, the private establishments will have no revenue, and would likely shut down.”
Critics also said, implementation of the Act would increase the expenditure of the State budget as no additional arrangements to cover the costs have been made by the government.
Sections of Rajasthan doctors said, the Act will increase the incidents of violence against doctors. They added, the Act does not appropriately defining the term emergency.
While the State government was accused of using the Act to win elections in the upcoming 2023 Rajasthan Legislative Assembly elections, it was passed in the State assembly amidst protests by healthcare professionals.
Opposing the provisions of the Act, the Indian Medical Association called for country wide protests and threatened to shut countrywide services. The All Rajasthan In-Service Doctors Association also called for shut down of healthcare services in the State. The protestors met with government opposition. Police used water cannon and baton charge against the protestors.

Comments

TRENDING

Right to walk, right to livelihood: Clearing footpaths 'can't mean' clearing out the urban poor

By Aseem Mishra*    India’s cities are locked in a quiet but intensifying struggle over one of their most contested public spaces: the footpath. For pedestrians, a footpath is basic infrastructure—a strip of ground that should allow people to move safely, independently and with dignity. For millions of informal workers, the same stretch of pavement is a workplace, a source of daily income and often the difference between survival and destitution.

Ample evidence of child labour in South Gujarat's cash rich sugarcane belt: Study

By Rajiv Shah A recent German government-funded study , undertaken jointly by the NGO Prayas Centre for Labour Research and Action and the Rosa Luxemburg Stiftung, which mainly deals examines the working conditions of migrant workers in the cash-rich sugarcane zone of South Gujarat, has gone a long way to suggest large scale prevalence of child labour during the harvesting season.

Women lawyers petition Supreme Court, seek reconsideration of Aug 4 order on bar council co-option

By A Representative   A group of women advocates who stood sixth and seventh among female candidates in the recent Bar Council elections have filed a petition before the Supreme Court, seeking a recall and reconsideration of the Court’s August 4 order determining the mechanism for co-opting women into State Bar Councils.