ORDER : 1. The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by the petitioners seeking direction to the respondent Nos.2 and 3 to provide copies of the medical report and other reports in relation to treatment of Asharam @ Ashumal, who is admitted in AIIMS Hospital since 23.01.2024. 2. Said Asharam @ Ashumal, aged 85 years is stated to be convicted and is reported to be serving his sentence in Central Jail, Jodhpur. 3. The petitioner No. 1 claims himself to be the Manager of Ashram being run under the aegis of the patient (Asharam @ Ashumal) while petitioner No. 2 is sister of said patient. 4. The petitioners have averred that Asharam @ Ashumal is undergoing treatment in AIIMS Hospital, Jodhpur on account of chest pain, anemia and other health related issues. According to the petitioners looking to the complications and multiple ailments, they want to take opinion of experts and take him to higher centre for treatment. 5. It is contended by the petitioners that on request being made, the Authorities of the AIIMS Hospital have refused to provide them medical reports, etc. for no tenable reason. 6. Mr. Saluja, learned counsel submitted that even an application under Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 2005') filed by the lawyer of the petitioners has been turned down by the Authorities of the AIIMS Hospital, on the ground that it is barred by the impediment provided under the provisions of Section 8 (1)(j) of the Act of 2005. 7. Learned counsel argued that denial of the documents relating to a patient amounts to violation of his Fundamental Right guaranteed under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. 8. Learned counsel submitted that howsoever experts or specialists the Doctors at AIIMS maybe, a patient and his relatives have a right to seek opinion from the experts for better care and treatment of the patient. He argued that such information and reports cannot be withheld. 9. Mr. Mukesh Rajpurohit, learned Deputy Solicitor General appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted that the information has rightly been refused as the patient is an in house patient at AIIMS and providing copies of the report may interfere in administration of the Institute on the one hand and can adversely affect the health of the patient on the other. 10. Mukesh Rajpurohit, learned Deputy Solicitor General appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted that the information has rightly been refused as the patient is an in house patient at AIIMS and providing copies of the report may interfere in administration of the Institute on the one hand and can adversely affect the health of the patient on the other. 10. So far as the application filed under the Act of 2005 is concerned, Mr. Mukesh Rajpurohit, learned Deputy Solicitor General submitted that the same was furnished by one Lalit Kishore, purportedly an advocate of the patient and therefore, the same has rightly been rejected keeping in view the spirit of the provisions of Act of 2005. 11. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 12. So far as providing information to advocate of the patient (Lait Kishore) or any person other than the patient under the Act of 2005 is concerned, this Court does not find any error or infirmity in the stand of the AIIMS Authorities. 13. Medical report and documents relating to the treatment are privy to the patient and such information cannot be divulged to common man or even an advocate under the provision of Act of 2005. 14. But, when such information is being asked for by the patient himself or his close relatives such as brother, sister, father, mother, son, etc. the authorities cannot refuse to provide the same. 15. The patient and his relatives have a right guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution to get best treatment and obtaining copies of the medical reports and prescription, etc. is a facet of such implicit right. 16. A patient may like to consult any expert under the sun, no hospital much less a State run hospital can refuse to provide such information. The stand of the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 that the same shall be provided only at the time of discharge is untenable in the eye of law apart from being arbitrary. Such denial also impinges upon right of a citizen guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution. 17. The petition is, therefore, allowed. 18. The respondent No. 3 is hereby directed to provide soft copies/hard copies of Bed Head Ticket; the medical reports; blood reports; X-Ray reports; angiography report, etc. to the patient or to the petitioner No. 2, subject of course to payment of applicable charges. 19. 17. The petition is, therefore, allowed. 18. The respondent No. 3 is hereby directed to provide soft copies/hard copies of Bed Head Ticket; the medical reports; blood reports; X-Ray reports; angiography report, etc. to the patient or to the petitioner No. 2, subject of course to payment of applicable charges. 19. After dictation of the order, Mr. Saluja, learned counsel for the petitioners further prayed that the respondents be directed to provide an ambulance, which is equipped with cardiac equipments and expert attendant, when the patient is required to be transferred from AIIMS Hospital, Jodhpur to Jail or any other place. 20. This Court does not deem it appropriate to pass any order as the patient is already admitted and undergoing his medical treatment in AIIMS Hospital. 21. The petitioners may contact the Jail Authorities for such purpose. In case, such request is not acceded to, the petitioners' right to agitate their cause in accordance with law, shall remain reserved. 22. Needless to mention that if the patient's treatment continues and petitioner No. 2 requires any further documents relating to his treatment, etc. the same shall also be provided to the patient or to the petitioner No. 2 as directed hereinabove. 23. The AIIMS Authorities are directed to henceforth provide copies of the medical reports, etc. of all the patients, if demanded by the patient himself or his close relatives or the person, who has got the patient admitted and signed the necessary authorization/ undertaking on payment of usual charges. 24. The petition as well as the stay application stand disposed of, accordingly.