'Right To Health Integral To Article 21': P&H High Court Flags Need To Revisit Medical Reimbursement Policies
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has underscored that the right to health and medical care is an integral part of the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution, while calling for a humane and practical approach in matters of medical reimbursement for State employees and pensioners.
Justice Sandeep Moudgil said, "It is the opinion of this Court that the most equitable way forward is to breathe practical life into statutory policies by viewing them through the timeless prism of our ancient foundational values. Medical reimbursement policies ought to be interpreted in a manner that advances the cause of human welfare rather than defeats it through technicalities. The constitutional promise of a welfare State draws strength from the enduring civilisational ethos of this country, encapsulated in the ancient Sanskrit principle of “सव भवु सुखनः , सव सु िनरामयाः ”—may all be happy; may all be free from illness."
The Court said, "principle underlying this timeless invocation is that the well-being of society is inseparable from the health and dignity of its people, and it embodies a foundational principle of governance. The State must ensure that policies serve the cause of justice rather than obstruct it, as beneficial schemes must advance their remedial purpose. Medical reimbursement, being an instrument of social welfare, should therefore receive a humane and purposive construction, consistent with the constitutional vision of a just and caring society."
Disposing of a batch of writ petitions involving denial or inadequate reimbursement of medical expenses, the Court examined key issues including denial of claims for treatment taken in non-empanelled hospitals, restriction of reimbursement to PGI rates despite policy provisions allowing higher payouts, and the continued application of outdated income caps and treatment packages.
At the outset, the Court reiterated that the State bears a constitutional obligation to ensure access to healthcare, particularly for its employees. Relying on precedents including State of Punjab v. Mohinder Singh Chawla and Shiv Kant Jha v. Union of India, the Court held that medical reimbursement cannot be denied merely because treatment was taken in a non-recognised hospital, especially in emergency situations.
The Bench observed that while premier government institutions like PGI provide quality care, ground realities such as long waiting periods, overcrowding, and lack of immediate access often compel patients to seek urgent treatment at nearby private hospitals. In such cases, denying reimbursement on technical grounds would place “policy procedure above human survival.”
The Court further noted that medical reimbursement policies are instruments of social welfare meant to prevent financial distress during illness and must be interpreted with “constitutional compassion” rather than rigid technicality.
During the hearing, the State submitted that it has initiated a reconsideration of the existing policy framework, including the challenged provisions, to align them with current medical realities. Taking this statement on record, the Court disposed of the petitions with directions to the authorities to examine each petitioner's claim individually and sympathetically.
A Committee constituted by the State has been tasked with deciding the claims within four weeks. The Court also directed that any amount found payable shall carry interest at 6% per annum from the date it became due.
Emphasising the welfare role of the State, the Court invoked the principle “सर्वे भवन्तु सुखिनः, सर्वे सन्तु निरामयाः” (may all be happy, may all be free from illness), observing that policies must advance human welfare and not defeat it through procedural rigidity.
Mr. Sunil K. Nehra, Sr. Advocate with Mr. VirenNehra, Advocate for the petitioner in CWP-39452-2025
Ms. Poorvi Sharma, Advocate for Mr. Manish Soni, Advocate
for the petitioner in CWP-16778-2024 Mr. Rishi Pal Chaudhary, Advocate for the petitioner in CWP-16910-2025
Mr. Chaman Deep, Advocate for Mr. Ivneet Singh Pabla, Advocate for the petitioner in CWP-17505-2022
Mr. PR Yadav, Advocate for the petitioner in CWP-2581-2025
Mr. Vikas Singh Chawra, Advocate, Mr. ParvinderMoar, Advocate,
Mr. Tejas Ahlawat, Advocate for the petitioner in CWP-2962-2024
Mr. PK Chugh, Advocate for the petitioner in CWP-4485-2022
Mr. Suryaveer Singh Surjewala, Advocate for the petitioner in CWP-6039-2025 (through hybrid mode)
Mr. Diwan S. Adlkaha, Advocate for the petitioner in CWP-6438-2026* Mr. SauravVerma, Advocate and
Mr. Anshul Pareek, Advocate for the petitioner in CWP-7575-2022
Mr. Deepak Sonak, Advocate and Ms. Riya Kangra, Advocate for the petitioner in CWP-8127-2026 Mr. Sandeep Thakan, Advocate for the petitioner in CWP-7966-2025.
Title: SWATI YADAV v. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS