HC invokes ‘Garuda Purana’ to emphasise right to life

Invoking verses from ‘Garuda Purana’ to assert that preservation of life is a sacred duty and a constitutional imperative, the Punjab and Haryana High Court said one should do what was the best during life-threatening emergencies. Medical reimbursement, in such situations, cannot be restricted to government facility rates.

Noting that pensioners and employees were being forced to approach courts to recover expenses for life-saving treatment, the Bench asked the state to reconsider its medical reimbursement policy to allow full or substantial payment in certified emergencies, even if treatment was taken at a non-empanelled hospital. “Such a reform would reduce litigation, promote trust in governance, and align administrative practice with constitutional morality,” it ruled.

The ruling came as Justice Sandeep Moudgil quashed calculation sheet restricting the claim of a retired Chief Engineer to Rs 1.38 lakh against an actual expenditure of Rs 3.54 lakh. The court directed the state to reimburse the balance with 9% interest from the date of discharge.

Criticising the authorities for “mechanical practice” of capping reimbursement, irrespective of the gravity of the crisis, the court said the right under Article 21 was “not a right to partial survival”. It was right to meaningful preservation of life and dignity.

The court observed that development “cannot rest on GDP alone” and preservation of life must remain “non-negotiable”. Drawing from ancient Indian thought, the court reproduced verses from “Garuda Purana”, like: “Without the body how can one obtain the objects of human life? Therefore, protecting the body, which is the wealth, one should perform the deeds of merit”; “One should protect his body which is responsible for everything. He who protects himself by all efforts, will see many auspicious occasions in life”; and “If one does not prevent what is unpleasant to himself, who else will do it? Therefore, one should do what is good to himself.”

The court noted that the petitioner had slipped into a coma and was shifted on medical advice to a non-empanelled hospital equipped to handle a neurological emergency. “To expect, in such a moment, a verification of empanelment lists or rate charts is to demand bureaucratic compliance from the brink of mortality,” the Bench held.