The Supreme Court on Monday issued notice in a public interest litigation urging the Union Government to frame statutory rules or detailed executive guidelines to regulate criminal action against doctors accused of medical negligence.

A bench led by Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta sought a response from the Centre after hearing Senior Advocate Shadan Farasat, appearing for the petitioner, Sameeksha Foundation.

The PIL states that in Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab [(2005) 6 SCC 1], the Supreme Court had emphasised that the Union and State Governments must lay down statutory norms or official instructions for handling criminal negligence allegations against medical professionals. Yet, nearly twenty years later, no such comprehensive framework has been notified.

Relying on an RTI reply by the National Medical Commission which merely says the rules are “under process”, the Foundation argues that the prolonged delay reflects how lightly preventable loss of human lives is treated in India.

It refers to Para 52 of Jacob Mathew, wherein the Supreme Court mandated that until the rules are framed, the following interim safeguards must apply:

• A private complaint cannot proceed unless supported by a credible expert medical opinion indicating prima facie negligence.

• During investigation, an independent opinion should be obtained preferably from a qualified government doctor applying the Bolam test.

• Doctors should not be arrested mechanically; arrest must be resorted to only if essential for investigation or securing presence.

The petitioner contends that in the absence of statutory rules, prosecution largely depends on inquiry committee reports — which are predominantly prepared by fellow doctors — resulting in biased outcomes. Numerous police complaints filed by patients or their relatives fail to even reach the FIR stage, it highlights, due to lack of neutral medical assessments.

The plea adds that doctors already enjoy indemnity insurance in civil negligence cases, and in criminal cases, “Doctors judging Doctors” leads to a system akin to “Appeal from Caesar to Caesar’s wife”, shielding colleagues from accountability.

Citing the 73rd Parliamentary Standing Committee Report on Health and Family Welfare, it notes that expert panels often show reluctance in declaring medical professionals negligent, leading to a nearly negligible rate of prosecution by the then Medical Council of India.

The report had also recommended that inquiry committees must comprise experts from varied backgrounds — patient rights advocates, social activists, and others — to ensure fairness and transparency.

The petitioner states that Parliament has repeatedly been asked about medical negligence, but the standard reply is that disciplinary action can be taken under NMC’s Professional Conduct Regulations, and that no centralised data on medical negligence exists.

It further argues that a preventable death inside a hospital due to gross negligence would amount to “murder” in any other environment and should not be treated lightly.

Putting reliance on National Library of Medicine research, the Foundation claims that India sees up to 5.2 million medical malpractice cases annually, whereas NCRB data shows only about 1,019 criminal cases for death by medical negligence were registered between 2017 and 2022 — revealing a massive disparity.

To ensure impartiality, the PIL suggests including retired judges, judicial officers, patient welfare NGOs, retired IAS/IPS officers, NHRC nominees, senior lawyers, academics, independent investigators, and social activists in medical negligence inquiry panels.

The PIL has been filed through Advocate-on-Record Devansh Srivastava.

Case Title: Sameeksha Foundation – A Crusade Against Medical Negligence vs. Union of India & Anr., W.P. (C) No. 1080/2025