It is “high time” the Uttar Pradesh Government “woke up to the medical needs of the citizenry of the State,” the Allahabad High Court observed, ordering an inquiry within 15 days into the death of a newborn who died within 24 hours of birth after being taken from one Lucknow hospital to another.
Prayagraj: The Allahabad High Court has directed the Uttar Pradesh Government to conduct an inquiry into the circumstances leading to the death of a newborn child who died within 24 hours of birth after being taken between hospitals in Lucknow, observing that it was “high time” the State “woke up to the medical needs of the citizenry of the State,” and flagging larger, systemic questions about the availability and decentralisation of medical services in the State.
A Bench of Justice Rajan Roy and Justice Manjive Shukla, in a 10-page order passed on September 11, 2026, directed the State to hold an inquiry and submit a report within 15 days. Importantly, the Court clarified that it had not, at this stage, drawn any conclusion regarding any lapse on the part of any doctor or hospital, and that accountability would be considered only if the inquiry established lapses or deficiencies in providing the requisite care and facilities.
The incident, and two competing accounts
The newborn, suffering from an ailment requiring immediate attention, was transported from Sultanpur to a referral hospital in Lucknow in an “ordinary” ambulance, which, the Court observed, ought to have had the necessary facilities. In Lucknow, the family took the child first to King George’s Medical University (KGMU), then to the Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Institute of Medical Sciences (RMLIMS), and thereafter to the Sanjay Gandhi Postgraduate Institute of Medical Sciences (SGPGI).
On what happened at KGMU, the Court recorded two competing versions. According to KGMU doctors, the child arrived by ambulance, the relatives went to the fourth floor where the neonatal intensive care unit is situated and were told no bed was available, and after the child’s medical papers were examined they were asked to bring the child up to the fourth floor, which they did not do. The family gave a different account, stating that they were told to take the child to RMLIMS because no bed was available at KGMU, and that they had requested that the child at least be examined while still in the ambulance. KGMU disputed the family’s version, and the Court said it would consider this aspect further. These are untested, competing accounts to be examined in the inquiry.
Significantly, the Court observed that irrespective of the competing versions, if there had been personnel available to guide or counsel the child’s relatives, “may be the situation would have been different.”
‘Larger issues’: decentralising medical care
Beyond the individual tragedy, the Court said that “larger issues” had arisen for consideration, chief among them how to reduce the pressure on hospitals and medical institutes in Lucknow. Stressing the urgent need to decentralise medical services across the different regions of Uttar Pradesh, the Bench observed:
“Unless this is done, people will keep coming to Lucknow for treatment and there is a limit to the capacity of the Hospitals and Medical Institutes situated in Lucknow to cater to such huge demand.”
The Court stressed the need to equip newly opened medical colleges with the necessary infrastructure, including special and super-specialty facilities, and especially ventilators, so that citizens can receive treatment closer to home and are not made to “run to far off places for treatment.” It recalled that when SGPGI was established, personnel qualified in Master of Social Work (MSW) used to attend to patients, understand their problems and coordinate with doctors and staff, and questioned why such a mechanism could not be introduced in every government hospital, noting that most residents of Uttar Pradesh depend on government hospitals, particularly for want of financial resources to access private care.
An online referral system, revisited
The Bench referred to its own February 2018 judgment in Kanti (Devi) v. State of U.P., in which it had called for an online referral system so that patients would not have to run from one hospital to another carrying medical documents, uncertain whether they would actually receive treatment at the referred hospital. Reiterating that approach, the Court said that before referring a critically ill patient, the referring hospital should first consult the referral hospital about the availability of the required facilities and services, so that “valuable time is not lost” in transportation, and the patient is instead taken “straightaway to the hospital where the bed or the facility of services are readily available.”
The Court directed the State to place before it a “tangible and conclusive road map with timelines,” rather than merely stating that the matter was under consideration by higher authorities. It also noted that it had repeatedly sought information on the percentage of the State budget allocated to medical facilities but had not received a response, and observed pointedly on the primacy of health spending:
“Lack of finance should not impede the provisions of medical facilities to the citizens. The State should give preference to provisions of medical facilities and services to the citizens, of the highest quality over other provisions.”
The inquiry, and possible compensation
Directing the State to conduct an objective and fair inquiry into the entire incident, the Court said the inquiry would help guide future action and enable it to fix accountability if lapses or deficiencies in providing the requisite care and facilities were established. If such lapses were found, the Court added, it would also consider granting compensation to the family for any negligence on the part of the State and other authorities. It directed that the family’s version be recorded and considered during the inquiry, required the report within 15 days, and listed the matter for October 1, 2026.
Why the order matters
The order is a significant reaffirmation that the right to health is an integral part of the right to life under Article 21, and that the State bears a positive, enforceable duty to provide accessible and adequate medical care, particularly to those who depend on public hospitals for want of means. By moving beyond the facts of a single, tragic death to the systemic failures the case exposed, the overcrowding of tertiary hospitals in the State capital, the absence of an effective referral mechanism, ill-equipped ambulances, and the lack of counselling support to guide desperate families, the Court framed the incident as a symptom of a wider gap in the State’s healthcare infrastructure rather than an isolated lapse.
Equally notable is the Court’s insistence on concrete, time-bound action: a “road map with timelines,” a functioning online referral system so that a critically ill patient is not sent from hospital to hospital, decentralised super-specialty facilities including ventilators, and the deployment of trained social workers in government hospitals. The observation that a lack of finances cannot be allowed to impede the provision of medical care, and that health must be prioritised over other heads of expenditure, echoes a consistent constitutional theme in the Court’s public-health jurisprudence. With the inquiry report due and the matter listed for October 1, the case will test whether these directions translate into measurable reform. The Court has been careful to record that it has reached no finding of fault against any hospital or doctor; those questions, and the competing accounts of what happened, remain to be determined in the inquiry.
Bench: Justice Rajan Roy and Justice Manjive Shukla, Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench)
Date of Order: September 11, 2026
Next Listed: October 1, 2026