The Supreme Court, on February 25, overturned the Allahabad High Court’s 2018 directive that mandated government officials in Uttar Pradesh to seek medical treatment exclusively from state-run hospitals. The apex court deemed the directive an overreach into policy matters and an infringement on individuals' choice of healthcare.

Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar expressed concern that such an order interfered with policy decisions and restricted patients' right to choose their preferred mode of treatment.

"How can the High Court dictate where a person should get treated? Obviously, the conditions of government hospitals need improvement, and that is a noble intent. But beyond that, you cannot impose restrictions on where individuals seek treatment," remarked CJI Khanna.

Read Also:- Sambhal Mosque Case: Well Near Masjid is on Public Land, Unrelated to Mosque - UP Government Tells Supreme Court

The Supreme Court particularly scrutinized Direction No. 11, which stated:

"All government officials and others receiving salaries or financial benefits from the government must avail medical care services from hospitals run and maintained by the state. VIP treatment should not be given to any high-ranking officials, political executives, or dignitaries. Moreover, medical expenses incurred in private hospitals should not be reimbursed, except in cases where specific treatments are unavailable in government facilities. If such an exception is made, similar provisions should be arranged for poor citizens at government expense."

During the hearing, the Supreme Court bench highlighted several concerns:

1. Unfair Preference for Government Officials – The Court observed that enforcing such a rule might prioritize government employees over common citizens in state-run hospitals, affecting underprivileged patients.
2. Interference in Policy Making – The bench noted that healthcare choices should remain flexible and that improving medical services should not come at the cost of restricting individual rights.
3. Financial Reimbursement Limitations – The directive’s restriction on reimbursement for private healthcare could potentially limit treatment options for government officials facing emergencies.

Considering these points, the Supreme Court confirmed its previous interim stay from May 14, 2018, and set aside the High Court’s directive. The court also provided an avenue for fresh petitions based on specific data and facts.

"It will be open to the writ petitioner to file a fresh petition with relevant facts and data before the High Court for suitable action," the court stated in its judgment.

Read Also:- UP Government Seeks Supreme Court's Nod to Administer Mathura Temples Under Receivership of Advocates

Background of the Allahabad High Court Order

The Allahabad High Court had issued its directive while hearing a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) under Article 226 regarding poor medical facilities in Uttar Pradesh. The case originated from a petition filed by a working-class woman who suffered mistreatment at a government hospital during childbirth, leading to severe health complications and financial strain as she had to shift to multiple hospitals, including private ones.

Apart from the restriction on government officials, the Allahabad High Court had also passed several directives to improve healthcare facilities in the state, including:

• Immediate Filling of Medical Vacancies:"All vacant medical, paramedical, and staff positions in government hospitals must be filled within the stipulated timeframe."
• Ensuring Availability of Medicines & Equipment:"Hospitals should have sufficient medical supplies, modern equipment, and operational facilities, with accountability measures in place."
• Special Focus on Women's Healthcare:"Lady doctors and nursing staff should be recruited to ensure proper pre-natal and post-natal care."
• Audit of Government Hospitals:"A special audit by the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) should be conducted to examine the financial handling and administration of medical institutions."
• Regulating Private Practices by Government Doctors:"A vigilance team should identify government medical officers engaged in private practice, and strict action should be taken against them."
• Traffic Management for Ambulances:"Traffic police should ensure free passage for ambulances to facilitate better emergency medical response."

Read Also:- Allahabad High Court Questions UP Government on Declaring Individuals as 'Bhu Mafia' Without Legal Authority

By striking down the High Court's directive, the Supreme Court has reinforced the principle that judicial intervention should not extend into executive policy-making. The ruling ensures that government officials in Uttar Pradesh retain the freedom to choose their medical treatment, while still emphasizing the need for systemic improvements in public healthcare.

This judgment underscores the necessity for reforms in government hospitals but maintains that such changes must be implemented through administrative and legislative channels rather than judicial mandates.

Case Details : ARVIND KUMAR BHATI Versus THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ORS. SLP(C) No. 2972/2019 and Connected Matter