‘Structural violence’: Gurgaon court slams system after inmate with cancer misses AIIMS visits due to ‘missing guards’

Terming the lapse as “indirect denial”, the court held that the failure to provide treatment due to the absence of escort guards amounts to “structural violence” and underscored that incarceration does not extinguish a prisoner’s fundamental rights. “Being a prisoner, the applicant-accused cannot be denied basic human right of health facility on such type of excuses,” the court said.

The case, State versus Rishi Raj, stems from First Information Report No. 43 dated November 28, 2022, registered at the ACB police station in Gurgaon. It involves multiple charges, including criminal breach of trust, cheating, forgery, criminal conspiracy, etc., along with provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

Rishi Raj, currently lodged in the Bhondsi District Jail, moved an application seeking directions to the jail superintendent for proper medical treatment, citing his deteriorating condition due to advanced cancer and hypertension.

Represented by advocate D C Gupta, the plea highlighted acute pain, difficulty in urination, and the risk of life-threatening complications without urgent specialist care. The State was represented by Public Prosecutor Aarti Solanki.

In its order, the court noted that it had on March 25, 2026, directed the jail authorities to ensure proper treatment. However, compliance fell short.

A series of missed appointments

A medical status report dated April 22, 2026, had revealed a series of referrals and missed opportunities. The inmate was first referred to Civil Hospital, Gurgaon, on April 4, 2026, from where specialists advised further evaluation at AIIMS, New Delhi. He was referred to AIIMS on April 6, 2026, but did not attend. On April 8, 2026, he was again taken to AIIMS, where a urology specialist examined him, prescribed investigations, and advised a follow-up after a month.

Subsequently, on April 16, 2026, he was again referred to AIIMS for follow-up, during which investigations were conducted. However, a crucial scheduled appointment thereafter could not be honoured.

“The patient was referred to the Urology Department at AIIMS, New Delhi, for a scheduled appointment, however due to unavailability of a medical escort guard, the inmate was not taken to the hospital,” the report stated.

An affidavit filed on April 29, 2026, by Jail Superintendent Vikas Kaushik detailed repeated attempts to secure escort personnel. Letters were sent to the Commissioner of Police and DCP Headquarters, Gurgaon (No. 2830-33 dated March 18, 2026), as well as to the Incharge, Escort Guard, Police Line, Gurgaon (letters dated April 4, 2026, and April 21, 2026), requesting guards for hospital visits on April 6 and April 22, respectively. Despite these efforts, no escort was provided at the jail gate.

The affidavit also cited provisions under the Punjab Prisoners (Attendance in Court) Rules, 1969, and Haryana Prisons Rule No. 268, which place responsibility for providing escort guards on the district police.

In its reply, the Gurgaon Police, through ACP Crime-I, acknowledged that the inmate could not be taken to AIIMS on the scheduled date due to a “shortage of force,” while asserting there was no mala fide intention.

Taking note of the inmate’s worsening condition—including acute pain and urinary complications—the court directed the Bhondsi jail superintendent to ensure that all prescribed medical tests and treatment are carried out at the earliest and strictly on scheduled dates.