NEW DELHI, November 4, 2026 (KCN): In a landmark judgment that reinforces the healthcare rights and social security of journalists, the Delhi High Court has firmly ruled that the government cannot deny medical reimbursement to accredited journalists merely on technical grounds when government hospitals are unable to provide the required medical facilities.
Delivering a significant victory for the journalistic fraternity, Justice Amit Mahajan, sitting as a single-judge bench, quashed the Delhi Government’s order rejecting the medical reimbursement claim of journalist Ravinder Gupta and directed the government to release ₹11,83,105.21 within eight weeks.
The judgment in Ravinder Gupta vs. Director of Health Services, Government of Delhi is expected to have wider implications for the implementation of medical assistance schemes for journalists and their dependent family members.
LIFE-SAVING TREATMENT DENIED, JOURNALIST FORCED TO APPROACH COURT
The case originated in August 2021, when Gupta’s wife developed an infected pseudoaneurysm of the right femoral artery, a serious medical condition requiring urgent vascular surgery.
On August 4, 2021, she was taken to GB Pant Hospital. However, the required surgical facilities were unavailable. Moreover, several government hospitals had been converted into dedicated COVID-19 facilities during the pandemic.
In view of the emergency, she was referred to Sir Ganga Ram Hospital, where she subsequently received treatment, including at Sir Ganga Ram City Hospital. The treatment resulted in substantial medical expenditure.
Being an accredited journalist recognised by the Delhi Government, Gupta submitted a reimbursement claim under Rule 7 of the Delhi Press Reporters and Medical Assistance Rules, 1955, seeking financial assistance for the emergency treatment of his wife.
However, the Director of Health Services rejected the claim through an order dated July 21, 2025, arguing that the medical condition did not qualify as an emergency and that Rule 7 was applicable only in situations where government hospitals were affected by strikes.
The department further maintained that converting government hospitals into COVID-19 facilities could not be equated with a strike.
HIGH COURT REJECTS TECHNICAL OBJECTIONS, PRIORITISES HUMAN LIFE
Rejecting the government’s narrow interpretation, the High Court recognised the practical difficulties faced by patients during the COVID-19 pandemic.
The court took note of the emergency medical certificate issued by Sir Ganga Ram Hospital, which established the urgency of the treatment and recommended immediate admission. The referral from GB Pant Hospital also substantiated the journalist’s claim.
In a significant observation, the court recognised that, from a patient’s perspective, the unavailability of treatment because of a hospital strike and the conversion of government hospitals into dedicated COVID facilities could have the same practical consequence: denial of access to essential medical treatment.
Under such circumstances, patients cannot be expected to wait for administrative arrangements or procedural interpretations when immediate medical intervention is necessary.
The court’s reasoning reinforces a fundamental principle: the protection of human life and access to emergency medical care must take precedence over technical objections and bureaucratic formalities.
Consequently, the rejection order was quashed, and the Delhi Government was directed to reimburse ₹11,83,105.21 within eight weeks.
The court also made observations concerning the possibility …
About the Author
