A division bench comprising Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice G M Mohiuddin was hearing a public interest litigation (PIL) filed after a young girl was allegedly denied ambulance services due to the absence of an Aadhaar card.
The petition was filed by paralegal volunteer K Raju, who sought judicial intervention to ensure that emergency medical services remain accessible, irrespective of documentation.
According to The Indian Express, the bench of judges repeatedly highlighted the importance of emergency care and questioned whether accident victims or critically ill patients could be denied ambulance transport for lack of Aadhaar. The bench questioned, “We are only trying to find out if a person who has met with an accident and is lying on the road, some passerby calls the service, will he not be transported unless his Aadhaar card is shown?”
When the assistant government pleader, representing the Department of Health, Medical and Family Welfare, stated that Aadhaar was required, the bench expressed serious concern.
The court observed that “a person who meets with an accident on the road or any person who is faced with an emergency, where he/she is not in possession of Aadhaar card, does not derive the benefit of the emergency service. Is it like that? That, unless the Aadhaar is shown, the person is not transported to the nearest hospital?”
The court further clarified that the issue under examination was not whether treatment is eventually provided at hospitals, but whether timely pre-hospital care and transport, a crucial link in emergency medicine, was being obstructed by administrative conditions.
The Indian Express reported that the petitioner’s counsel, B Koumuraiah, highlighted that the December 2024 incident involved a victim from a vulnerable Scheduled Caste community and pointed to systemic inaction by emergency response mechanisms. While the government pleader argued that patients are treated even without Aadhaar, the bench reiterated that the concern lay specifically with ambulance access and immediate transportation to healthcare facilities.
Seeking time to place the government’s official position on record, the assistant government pleader requested an adjournment. The bench noted that it would be appropriate for the state to formally clarify whether any form of identification is mandated during medical emergencies.
The matter has been adjourned and will be taken up for further hearing after three weeks.
Disclaimer: This website is primarily for healthcare professionals. The content here does not replace medical advice and should not be used as medical, diagnostic, endorsement, treatment, or prescription advice. Medical science evolves rapidly, and we strive to keep our information current. If you find any discrepancies, please contact us at corrections@medicaldialogues.in. Read our Correction Policy here. Nothing here should be used as a substitute for medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment. We do not endorse any healthcare advice that contradicts a physician's guidance. Use of this site is subject to our Terms of Use, Privacy Policy, and Advertisement Policy. For more details, read our Full Disclaimer here.
NOTE: Join us in combating medical misinformation. If you encounter a questionable health, medical, or medical education claim, email us at factcheck@medicaldialogues.in for evaluation.