Noting that pensioners and employees are being forced to approach courts to recover expenses for life-saving treatment, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has asked the State to reconsider its medical reimbursement policy to allow full or substantial payment in certified emergencies even if treatment is taken in a non-empanelled hospital. “Such a reform would reduce litigation, promote trust in governance, and align administrative practice with constitutional morality,” the court ruled.The Bench also invoked verses from Garuda Purana to assert that preservation of life is a sacred duty and a constitutional imperative, while holding that one should do what is good to him in life-threatening emergencies. Medical reimbursement, in such situations, cannot be allowed at government facility rates by treating the matter as bureaucratic.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 Rs 2.16 lakh with 9 per cent interest from the date of discharge.Admonishing the authorities for their “mechanical practice” of capping reimbursement irrespective of the gravity of the crisis, Justice Moudgil ruled that the right under Article 21 was “not a right to partial survival”. It was right to meaningful preservation of life and dignity.Linking the issue to the constitutional vision of a welfare State and the national resolve of “Viksit Bharat 2047”, Justice Moudgil observed that development “cannot rest on GDP alone” and that preservation of life must remain “nonnegotiable”.Blending constitutional doctrine with civilisational philosophy, Justice Moudgil termed self-preservation a facet of the Right to Life. The Bench observed that self-preservation of one’s life was the necessary concomitant of the right to life enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India, fundamental in nature, sacred, precious and inviolable.Drawing from ancient Indian thought, the court reproduced verses from Garuda Purana, including: “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.”Applying these principles to the facts, Justice Moudgil noted that the petitioner had slipped into 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, adding that in such urgency “decision has to be taken forthwith if precious life has to be saved”.Rejecting the State’s reliance on executive instructions limiting reimbursement to notified rates, Justice Moudgil declared that “policies are instruments of governance, they are not fetters upon justice”, and administrative convenience could not eclipse the right to life.Justice Moudgil cautioned that restricting reimbursement to institutional ceilings in genuine emergencies amounted to penalising the citizen for choosing survival over procedure. In a broader constitutional reflection, the court observed that a developed nation was measured by “the social security, public health assurance, and opportunity of dignified ageing offered by it to its citizens.”Justice Moudgil warned that denying reimbursement in life-threatening emergency amounted to eroding constitutional trust. A developed democracy was required to ensure that its public servants were not compelled to choose between survival and financial ruin.Directing payment of the remaining amount within four weeks with interest at 9 per cent per annum, asked the State to revisit its reimbursement policy to incorporate flexibility for certified emergencies so that “constitutional promises do not wither in procedural rigidity”.