would however, in my view, be shutting one's eyes to the real world if the Court were to proceed on the basis that we do live in such a world. It is common knowledge that health authorities of all kinds are constantly pressed to make ends meet.‖ 31. Ms. Trehan further stated that in the case of T. Soobramoney vs. Minister of Health (Kwazulu-Natal) (Case CCT 32/97) the Constitutional Court of South Africa dealt with the issue whether a person who suffered from chronic kidney disease could be provided State funds for dialysis as a matter of right. The Indian case of Paschim Bengal Khet Mazdoor Samity (supra) was cited in this case. The South African Court distinguished the South African law by stating, "In India the Supreme Court has developed a jurisprudence around the right to life so as to impose positive obligations on the State in respect of the basic needs of its inhabitants....... Unlike the Indian Constitution ours deals specifically in the bill of rights with certain positive obligations imposed on the State and where it does so, it is our duty to apply the obligations as formulated in the Constitution and not to draw inferences that would be inconsistent therewith." Eventually dismissing the claim of the petitioner, the Court held that the position in South Africa was that, "The appellant's demand to receive dialysis treatment at a State hospital must be determined in accordance with the provisions of Section 27(1) and (2) and not Section 27(3). These sections entitle everyone to have access to health care services provided by the State "within its available resources". The South African Court further observed that, "The State has to manage its limited resources in order to address all these claims. There will be times when this requires it to adopt a holistic approach to the larger needs of society rather than to focus on the specific needs of particular W.P.(C) 7279/2013 Page 17 of 41