ORDER : “All persons deprived of their liberty shall be treated with humanity and with respect for the inherent dignity of the human persons.” (United Nations – Covenant on Civil and Political rights UNICCPR) The writ petition has been filed for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 2nd respondent herein to permit the petitioner's husband, namely, Pandi Durai to take treatment in a private hospital at the cost of the petitioner. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. Brief Facts: 3. The petitioner's husband, namely, Pandi Durai is in custody of the 3rd respondent from 22.03.2016, pursuant to a case registered in Crime No.194 of 2016 in respect of offences under Sections 147, 148, 307, 302 and 109 IPC and Sections 3(2)(Va) of PoA Amendment Act, 2015. 3a. The petitioner's husband is aged 49 years. On complaint of chest pain, breathlessness and palpitation, he was admitted in the prison hospital, Trichy and later, he was shifted to the Government Hospital, Trichy. This happened on 07.05.2016. He was admitted in the ICU and was given treatment till 19.05.2016. After the completion of treatment, he was taken back to the prison hospital. 3b. Thereafter, the petitioner has submitted a representation to the 2nd respondent that her husband, though discharged from the Government Hospital on 19.05.2016, was not completely cured of his problem and therefore, she must be permitted to give treatment to her husband by admitting him in a private hospital at her own expense; as the representation was not considered, this writ petition has been filed. 4. The 2nd respondent has filed a counter affidavit, stating that neither there is a necessity to give any treatment nor there is a necessity to give treatment in the private hospital. Apprehension is also expressed that if permission is granted in this case, similarly placed prisoners may also raise similar demand and that would be causing administrative problems for the jail authorities and therefore, permission should not be granted. It is stated in the counter that the representation of the petitioner was received on 23.05.2015 and her request had been rejected. 4a. It is stated in the counter that the representation of the petitioner was received on 23.05.2015 and her request had been rejected. 4a. Supporting the contention raised in the counter affidavit, learned Additional Government Pleader strenuously opposed the petition on the ground that when the petitioner's husband had been treated in a well equipped Government Hospital and also he is cured of his problem, there is no necessity to give treatment in a private hospital. 5. It is not in dispute that the petitioner's husband suffered sudden chest pain on 07.05.2016 and having taken treatment at Mahatma Gandhi Memorial Government Hospital, Trichy, he was discharged on 19.05.2016. It is an admitted case of the respondents that the petitioner's husband is known case of Systemic Hypertension, Diabetus Melitus/Coronary Heart Disease and he is stated to be stable, but on medication. 6. Therefore, the only question is whether he must be allowed to take treatment in the Government Hospital or in the private hospital. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner's wife had serious dissatisfaction regarding the nature and quality of treatment and that is why she has come forward with the request to admit her husband in the private hospital. This apprehension has to be understood in the light of the defence taken and the actual state of affairs. Even though it is alleged that the petitioner's husband was discharged after recovery, in the counter itself, it is stated that still he is kept in the prison hospital for continuous treatment. Under such circumstances, the apprehension of the petitioner cannot be discarded, as baseless. 8. It is contended by the learned Additional Government Pleader that the competency of Government Doctors cannot be underestimated and therefore, there is no necessity to send the prisoner for private treatment. 8a. The contention that the competency of Government Doctors in terms of their qualification, experience and skill, cannot be underestimated is perfectly right, but when the petitioner asked for treatment in a private hospital, it may not reflect on the efficiency on Doctors, but on the overall conditions prevailing in the Government Hospitals. 8a. The contention that the competency of Government Doctors in terms of their qualification, experience and skill, cannot be underestimated is perfectly right, but when the petitioner asked for treatment in a private hospital, it may not reflect on the efficiency on Doctors, but on the overall conditions prevailing in the Government Hospitals. The competency and quality of the Doctors employed in Government Hospitals is not a mismatch to the Doctors employed in private hospitals, but having regard to the flooding patient's population, seeking assistance of the Government Hospital, the inadequacy of equipment available coupled with shortage of manpower in the hospital are pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner and it is stated that these factors normally make the people to think that they must be given treatment in a private hospital. Such apprehension cannot be said to be unreasonable. 9. While he was under treatment, the petitioner's husband has also been detained as Goonda as per the detention order dated 12.05.2016 of the District Collector. On this ground also, it is urged that when the petitioner's husband is detained under Goondas Act, he should not be permitted to be treated in a private hospital, especially when there is quality medical treatment available at the Government Hospital. 10. Prisoner is also a human being, a legal personality, and a natural person and the crime does not reduce a prisoner to a non-person. The detenu/convict/under-trial persons go to prisons, as punishment and not for punishment and deprivation of treatment facility would amount to imposition of additional punishment 11. The Constitution of India does not stop with creation of substantive rights, but also provides for enforcement of rights, i.e., it is a remedial right for the enforcement of the substantive rights. Writ literally means a written order. In India, rights are available not only for the enforcement of fundamental rights, but also for the enforcement of non fundamental legal rights created by various statutes and other laws in force for the time being. So far as the right to get competent medical treatment is concerned, it is a fundamental right, guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 11a. Article 21 of the Constitution casts obligation on the State to ensure the right to life, which includes the responsibility to preserve life. So far as the right to get competent medical treatment is concerned, it is a fundamental right, guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 11a. Article 21 of the Constitution casts obligation on the State to ensure the right to life, which includes the responsibility to preserve life. No doubt, the prison authorities have taken enough care to provide treatment at the Government Hospital, Trichy. But from the circumstances stated supra, the petitioner has entertained an anxiety that giving treatment at a private hospital would be better in order to preserve her husband's life. The petitioner's husband being a heart-patient, the irritation and agony that he is not permitted to choose a hospital of his choice, would itself aggravate his heart decease. 12. Even though it is pointed out that the petitioner's husband is in custody facing severe charges, needless to point out that the human life of the prisoner is as precious as that of any other human being. Preservation of human life is of paramount importance. Once life is lost, resurrection is beyond the capacity of human being. 13. When these views were expressed in the Court itself, learned Additional Government Pleader would submit that if the petitioner is permitted to take treatment in a private hospital, that must be for a very minimal time and with Police escort. 14. There is an undertaking by the petitioner that she would bear the entire medical expenses and also costs for providing escort to her husband. The said undertaking is recorded. 15. Learned counsel for the petitioner, on getting instructions and consultation based on the medical reports available, submitted that at least three days' time would be required for completing medical check-up and treatment of the petitioner. 16. The fact remains that there is a statement by the 2nd respondent that the petitioner has been kept in prison for continuous medical treatment by the prison Doctor. Therefore, the contention that the petitioner is not in need of any further treatment would not be accepted. 17. The anticipated administrative problem cannot be a ground to refuse medical treatment in a private hospital. It is not even an administrative problem, but it would be an administrative management. Therefore, the contention that the petitioner is not in need of any further treatment would not be accepted. 17. The anticipated administrative problem cannot be a ground to refuse medical treatment in a private hospital. It is not even an administrative problem, but it would be an administrative management. Request made for private medical treatment from other prisoners (if any) could be considered only on the basis of merits available in each case and this order cannot amount to a precedent for every case. 18. Under such circumstances, the petitioner's husband is permitted to take treatment in Kaveri Medical Centre, Trichy as per the request of the petitioner for a period of three days, commencing from 18.06.2016 to 20.06.2016. The petitioner shall bear the medical expenses and costs for escort. The second respondent/Superintendent of Central Prison, Trichy is directed to release the husband of the petitioner by name Pandi Durai on 18.06.2016 after following the usual procedure and after ensuring safeguarding measures in accordance with the Prison manual and the petitioner's husband shall be taken back to the Central Prison, Trichy before 6.00p.m. on 20.06.2016. 19. It is the duty of the Court to point out that the legislature should take measures to codify the rights of the prisoners. The writ petition is ordered accordingly. No costs.