82. However, as the concept of CSR is still at a nascent stage and there is no mechanism in place which popularizes and facilitates donation, this Court is of the view that State must bear the burden of the treatment. 83. Before parting with the judgment, this Court would like to place on record its appreciation for the high level of debate and the assistance rendered to it by all the counsel appearing in the present case. 84. While Mr. Ashok Aggarwal deserves credit for filing the present petition and for bringing the plight of the petitioner to the notice of this Court, Ms. Zubeda Begum put forth her submissions in a concise manner. Ms. Manisha Dhir was very helpful in getting the Ministry of Corporate Affairs to promptly accept and implement the suggestions given by this Court with regard to CSR. Mr. Anand Grover, learned senior counsel not only provided valuable insight, but also gave a contextual meaning to the right to health. This Court may mention that without the assistance and the hard work put in by the Amicus Curiae, Ms. Shyel Trehan, it would not have been possible for this Court to conclude the hearing and pronounce judgment in a short time period. CONCLUSION 85. To conclude, today, on account of lack of Government planning, there is ‘pricing out’ of orphan drugs for rare and chronic diseases, like Gaucher. The enzyme replacement therapy is so expensive that there is a breach of constitutional obligation of the Government to provide medical aid on fair, reasonable, equitable and affordable basis. By their inaction, the Central and the State Governments have violated Articles 14 and 21 of the W.P.(C) 7279/2013 Page 40 of 41