PETITIONER'S ARGUMENTS 11. Mr. Ashok Aggarwal, learned counsel for petitioner stated that since treatment of petitioner's ailment was available in India, the AIIMS, Central Government and Government of NCT of Delhi, were obligated under Article 21 of the Constitution of India to provide totally free treatment to the petitioner and like patients. He submitted that right to health was implicit in Article 21 of the Constitution. In support of his submissions, he relied upon a Division Bench's judgment of this Court in the case of All India Lawyers Union (Delhi Unit) vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors., 163 (2009) DLT 319 (DB). 12. According to Mr. Aggarwal, rules had been bent or revised whenever influential or powerful people had to be accommodated in the matter of providing medical treatment at State expense. 13. Mr. Aggarwal stated that Government of NCT of Delhi which was taking the stand of financial constraint in providing treatment to the petitioner, had reimbursed Rs.1.32 crore as medical expense to a MLA from Rohtas Nagar. 14. Mr. Aggarwal submitted that while providing free treatment to Government employees at State expense and at the same time denying free treatment to the non-Government employees (common man) on the alleged ground of financial constraints was arbitrary, discriminatory and hit by Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. According to him, ordinary people who are not Government servants also need to be treated equally in the matter of medical treatment at Government expense. He stated that the plea of financial constraint was not available to the Government after sixtyfive years of the Independence. W.P.(C) 7279/2013 Page 6 of 41