CHASKALSON P or himself is entitled to have the treatment provided at a state hospital without charge. [15] This Court has dealt with the right to life in the context of capital punishment but it has not yet been called upon to decide upon the parameters of the right to life or its relevance to the positive obligations imposed on the state under various provisions of the bill of rights. 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.4 Whilst the Indian jurisprudence on this subject contains valuable insights it is important to bear in mind that our Constitution is structured differently to the Indian Constitution. 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. [16] This should be done in accordance with the purposive approach to the interpretation of the Constitution which has been adopted by this Court. 5 Consistently 4 Basing itself on the right to life the Supreme Court of India has made orders requiring the state to provide medical treatment to those needing it, to provide legal aid to those who cannot afford it themselves, and to provide access between isolated areas and more developed areas. See generally in this regard VD Mahajan Constitutional Law of India 7 ed (Eastern Book Company, Lucknow 1991) at 230 – 234, and BL Hansaria Right to Life and Liberty under the Constitution (A Critical Analysis of Article 21) (NM Tripathi Private Ltd, Bombay 1993) at 24 – 40. 5 S v Makwanyane and Another 1995 (3) SA 391 (CC); 1995 (4) BCLR 665 (CC) at para 9. 8