India: Citizens, Courts and the Right to Health: Between Promise and Progress?
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, we examined health rights litigation in India before the Supreme Court and High Courts to determine whether litigation provides an effective mechanism for making health service delivery more equitable. For the purposes of the book and our chapter, we understood the right to health to include accessible, available and quality health care, as well as the underlying social determinants of health including, food, water, sanitation, education etc. By analysing a sample of 218 Supreme Court and High Court cases and conducting key informant interviews with petitioners, attorneys, judges, academics, government officials and civil society actors working on public health and human rights-related issues, we sought to answer the following questions:a. Who were the petitioners in these cases? b. What kinds of claims were brought? c. How were these claims adjudicated?d. What were the litigation outcomes that followed?e. What were the legislative and policy outcomes that followed adjudication of these cases?Assessed against the backdrop of a dismal health care situation in India, where accessibility, availability and quality of health care is extremely poor for the vast majority of the Indian population, we found a complex picture with many successes and failures of health rights litigation. We found that unlike countries like Argentina and Brazil also studied as part of this book, health rights litigation does not appear to be worsening health inequities in India. Yet, health rights litigation by itself cannot bring about the structural and systemic changes necessary for improving access to health care for the vast majority of the Indian population.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it