Telangana High Court Questions Mandatory Aadhaar for Emergency Ambulance Services
The Telangana High Court has raised a fundamental question regarding access to emergency medical care, asking the state government whether an Aadhaar card is mandatory for transporting a person in medical distress to the nearest hospital. This inquiry came during a hearing on Thursday, where the court addressed serious concerns about lapses in emergency medical services across the state.
Court Seeks Clarity on Emergency Transport Policies
A division bench comprising Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice GM Mohiuddin directed the state to file a counter affidavit within two weeks and adjourned the matter for further hearing after three weeks. The bench specifically questioned whether ambulance services were insisting on Aadhaar identification for transporting accident victims or individuals facing medical emergencies.
"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?" the bench asked during the proceedings. The court emphasized the need for authorities to "bring on record the department's stand" on this critical issue.
PIL Alleges Denial of Emergency Services Over Aadhaar
The public interest litigation was filed by para-legal volunteer K Raju, who alleged that emergency medical services were denied to a woman belonging to the SC Budaga Jangam community in December 2024 because she was not carrying an Aadhaar card. According to the petition, when the woman was found lying on the road, staff of the 108 EMRI ambulance service refused to assist her due to the absence of this identification document.
The petitioner highlighted what he termed as grave inaction by emergency responders and urged the court to direct authorities to ensure accessible and timely emergency medical services for all citizens, irrespective of documentation status. This case underscores broader concerns about bureaucratic barriers in life-threatening situations.
Conflicting Statements During Court Proceedings
During the hearing, when the assistant government pleader for health, medical and family welfare initially submitted that an Aadhaar card was necessary for services, the bench expressed concern: "A person who meets with an accident on the road or any person who is faced with a medical 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?"
However, when the assistant government pleader later stated that treatment was being provided even without Aadhaar, the bench clarified that the PIL specifically concerned transportation during emergencies, not treatment. The court observed that it would be appropriate for the department to place on record its official position regarding whether any identification document is required in medical emergency situations.
Broader Implications for Emergency Healthcare Access
This case raises significant questions about the balance between administrative requirements and urgent healthcare needs. The court's intervention comes at a time when:
- Emergency medical services face increasing scrutiny over accessibility
- Documentation requirements potentially delay critical care
- Vulnerable populations may be disproportionately affected by identification mandates
The Telangana High Court's directive for the state government to clarify its position within two weeks represents a crucial step toward ensuring that emergency medical transport remains accessible to all citizens, regardless of their ability to produce identification documents during moments of crisis.
