Advocate Jagrati Shukla died after suffering injuries in a road accident, allegedly due to delayed treatment at SRN Hospital. The Allahabad High Court has ordered a judicial inquiry, appointing retired Justice Arun Tandon to investigate medical negligence and related events.
The Allahabad High Court ordered a judicial inquiry into the death of advocate Jagrati Shukla, who allegedly did not receive timely treatment at Swaroop Rani Nehru (SRN) Hospital in Prayagraj after suffering injuries in an accident.
The Court has appointed retired High Court judge Justice Arun Tandon to conduct an independent probe into the incident, allegations of medical negligence, and the clash between advocates and doctors that followed.
A Division Bench of Justice Salil Kumar Rai and Justice Swarupama Chaturvedi passed the order while hearing two connected public interest litigations filed over the incident.
The petitions alleged that the police investigation was not being conducted fairly and that medical personnel involved in the incident were being protected.
The Court noted that Jagrati Shukla, a practicing advocate of the Allahabad High Court, was seriously injured in an accident on May 20, 2026, while travelling to the Allahabad High Court Cricket Ground for regular practice. Fellow advocates immediately rushed her to SRN Hospital.
According to the allegations made by advocates who accompanied her, the Emergency Medical Officer on duty was sleeping and failed to provide immediate treatment. It was further alleged that doctors misbehaved with the accompanying lady advocates when they requested urgent medical assistance.
The situation allegedly escalated into a physical confrontation between advocates and hospital staff, including doctors and senior residents.
Following the incident, advocate Riya @ Rasika Anees Khan lodged an FIR. Based on her complaint, Case Crime No. 0046 of 2026 was registered at Kotwali Police Station, Prayagraj, against unknown junior doctors and hospital staff under various provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
The incident sparked widespread protests. Members of the legal fraternity staged road blockades across Prayagraj, while doctors at SRN Hospital reportedly went on strike. The Court observed that both actions caused significant inconvenience to the general public.
The Bench further recorded that Jagrati Shukla was shifted from SRN Hospital to a private nursing home later the same day. Doctors there allegedly discovered severe pancreatic injuries and advised that she be transferred to SGPGI, Lucknow. She was shifted to Lucknow on May 22 or 23 and remained under treatment until her death on June 7, 2026.
The petitions claimed that if timely and proper treatment had been provided at SRN Hospital, her life could have been saved. It was also alleged that the Investigating Officer had failed to properly investigate the matter and had not promptly recorded statements of key witnesses and injured persons.
During the hearing, the Court called for a progress report from the State regarding the investigation. After examining the case diary and hearing the parties, the Bench observed that the circumstances surrounding the incident required an independent and credible inquiry.
The Court noted that complaints regarding poor medical care at SRN Hospital were not isolated and that public dissatisfaction with the quality of treatment at the hospital had been reported earlier as well. The Bench observed that the developments following the incident created legitimate concerns about whether any investigation conducted solely by the district administration would inspire public confidence.
Considering the seriousness of the matter, the Court requested retired judge Justice Arun Tandon to conduct a judicial inquiry.
The inquiry will examine whether Jagrati Shukla was immediately attended to upon arrival at SRN Hospital, whether she received proper and timely treatment, whether the standard of care was adequate, and whether her death can be linked to negligence in treatment.
The inquiry will also determine responsibility for the clash between advocates and doctors and examine why police personnel present at the trauma centre allegedly failed to ensure uninterrupted emergency medical services.
The Court granted Justice Arun Tandon broad powers to summon witnesses, call for records, seek expert opinions, examine electronic evidence, and obtain assistance from government doctors and independent experts.
The inquiry report has been requested preferably by September 30, 2026, and is to be submitted in a sealed cover.
At the same time, the Court declined to permit arrests in the criminal case. It noted that the incident occurred on May 20, 2026, and custodial interrogation did not appear necessary. Observing that the accused were medical professionals, the Bench directed that while the investigation should continue, no arrests should be made in Case Crime No. 0046 of 2026. Any person already arrested is to be released on a personal bond.
The Court strongly criticised both the road blockades organised by advocates and the strike by doctors. It observed that disputes between professional groups cannot become a reason to deprive citizens of their right to free movement or access to medical care.
The Bench stated that obstructing traffic and denying medical treatment to the public are acts that adversely affect ordinary citizens and cannot be tolerated.
Accordingly, the Court directed the District Magistrate and Commissioner of Police, Prayagraj, to ensure that any obstruction to traffic is immediately removed, including through lawful use of force if required. It also ordered that doctors and medical staff who had abstained from work must immediately resume duties. Failure to do so would result in suspension and reporting to the Court.
The Court further directed that no medical personnel should create inconvenience for the public or obstruct public movement in the district.
In an important development, the Court also ordered that the National Medical Council of India be impleaded as a respondent in the case. The Bench said its presence was necessary to address the recurring issue of strikes by doctors in government hospitals.
Warning against any future violations, the Court clarified that disobedience of its directions by advocates, doctors, hospital staff, teachers, or any government medical employee would amount to contempt of court and could invite legal action.
The matter is next scheduled for hearing on July 27, 2026.
Representation Seeks CBI Probe Into Advocate Jagrati Shukla Death
A detailed representation has been submitted to the President of India, Prime Minister, Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister, Health Minister, Bar Council of India, Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh, and Supreme Court Bar Association seeking immediate justice in the death of Advocate Jagrati Shukla, a young member of the High Court Bar Association, Allahabad.
The representation, dated June 15, 2026, was submitted by Advocate Ashish Kumar Mishra, former Treasurer, former Joint Secretary (Press), and former Governing Counsel Member of the High Court Bar Association, Allahabad. It seeks a CBI or SIT investigation, arrest of all accused persons, preservation of CCTV evidence, suspension of doctors involved, action against police officials, and compensation for the deceased advocate’s family.
According to the representation, Advocate Jagrati Shukla, aged 23, met with a road accident on May 20, 2026, while travelling to the Allahabad High Court premises for tournament practice. She was rushed to Swaroop Rani Nehru (SRN) Hospital, Prayagraj, where she was admitted to the Emergency Ward at around 6:10 AM.
The representation alleges that despite being seriously injured and requiring urgent medical attention, she was denied emergency treatment by the duty doctor, Dr. Monis Ali.
Advocate Mishra claimed that when one of the caregivers approached the doctor and woke him up, the doctor allegedly refused to treat the patient. The representation further states that a caregiver, Riya @ Rasika Anees Khan, started recording the doctor’s conduct on her mobile phone.
According to the allegations, after noticing the recording, Dr. Monis Ali became angry and allegedly assaulted the caregivers and attendants. The representation further claims that the doctor demanded deletion of the video recording before providing any medical treatment to the injured advocate.
The representation describes the incident as a shocking abuse of authority and alleges that the injured advocate was wrongfully confined inside a room without receiving any medical care. It states that she was bleeding heavily and suffering severe pain while the crucial “golden hour” for emergency treatment was lost.
The document further alleges that junior doctors, medical students, hospital guards, and other staff members joined the incident and physically assaulted Jagrati Shukla’s father, brother Abhishek Shukla, caregivers Riya @ Rasika Anees Khan, Haya Rizvi, Dipankar Tripathi, and other attendants present at the hospital.
Serious allegations have also been made regarding the treatment of female attendants. The representation claims that acts amounting to outrage of modesty were committed against women caregivers during the alleged assault.
According to the representation, the entire sequence of events was captured on CCTV cameras installed within the hospital premises and on mobile phones of attendants.
The representation claims that the death was caused by septic infection that developed due to the denial of immediate medical treatment during the critical hours after the accident.
Describing the incident as a criminal act rather than a mere case of negligence, the representation states,
“She succumbed to her injuries on 7th June 2026. Her death is not a misfortune it is a crime.”
It further alleges that the death was directly linked to the failure to provide emergency first aid, denial of treatment during the golden hours, wrongful confinement, physical assault, and continuing medical negligence.
The representation notes that FIR No. 0046 of 2026 was registered at Kotwali Police Station, Prayagraj, under various provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita relating to assault, wrongful confinement, intimidation, extortion, and causing hurt.
Referring to the Supreme Court’s decision in Parmanand Katara v. Union of India, the representation emphasises that providing emergency medical treatment is a constitutional obligation and asserts that accountability must be fixed for every person allegedly responsible for the death of the young advocate.
The representation ultimately calls for a comprehensive investigation and systemic reforms to ensure that no citizen is ever again denied life-saving emergency treatment in a public hospital.
Case Title: Amit Kumar Singh @ Sonu Singh and Another vs State of U.P. and 9 Others
(Criminal Writ-Public Interest Litigation No. 8 of 2026)
Connected With
Mamta Singh and 11 Others vs State of U.P. and 3 Others
(Public Interest Litigation No. 1493 of 2026)