Medical Negligence: Supreme Court Calls for Centre’s Reply on Need for Prosecution Guidelines
(By Syed Ali Taher Abedi)
New Delhi: 2, December,2025: The Supreme Court of India has sought the Union Government’s response on a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) demanding a statutory framework to regulate criminal prosecution in cases of alleged medical negligence. A Bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta issued notice on the petition, which raises concerns over the absence of binding rules despite clear judicial directions nearly two decades ago.
The PIL underscores that in Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab (2005), the apex court had categorically directed the Centre and state governments to frame guidelines, in consultation with the then Medical Council of India (now the National Medical Commission), to ensure that doctors are not subjected to prosecution without an independent medical opinion and that arrests are not made as a matter of routine.
“In the absence of Statutory Rules or Executive Instructions as required to be framed in compliance of Jacob Mathew judgement and under the prevailing system of the Inquiry Committees comprising of mostly the doctors only, the medical inquiry reports, in many cases, do not happen to be unbiased. “The plea contended.
However, the petitioners contend that even after twenty years, neither statutory rules nor executive instructions have been framed. They submitted that an RTI query filed in 2005 was transferred to the National Medical Commission, which, in its reply dated May 23, 2025, admitted that no such guidelines exist and that the process of framing them remains “under consideration.”
Calling this state of affairs an “alarming indifference” to the Court’s binding directions, the plea argues that the vacuum has left patients without deterrence and doctors without procedural safeguards. It further points out that while the 2005 ruling required Investigating Officers to obtain an independent medical opinion from a competent doctor, in practice, no doctor is willing to opine against another, leading to systemic paralysis.
The petition also criticizes the prevailing practice of constituting inquiry committees composed solely of doctors, which, it claims, results in biased outcomes. The “doctor judging doctor” system, according to the petitioners, is inadequate and leaves families of victims without meaningful recourse.
The plea recalls that even the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Health and Family Welfare, in its 2013 report, had noted widespread public distrust in internal medical inquiry systems. It recommended broader panels including patient representatives, retired judges, civil servants, and independent experts. Despite these recommendations and repeated parliamentary questions over the years, no significant reform has been undertaken.
“About 12 years have passed since the presentation of the said Parliamentary Standing Committee Report which was presented to Parliament on 9th December 2013. However, even the recommendations of the said Parliamentary Standing Committee are yet to see the light of the day as regards the cases of gross medical negligence necessitating prosecution under criminal laws.”
Citing data published by Business Standard in April 2024, the petitioners highlighted that India witnesses nearly 5.2 million medical malpractice cases annually, underscoring the urgency of a statutory framework to balance patient rights with safeguards for medical professionals.
The matter will now await the Union Government’s response, as the Court examines whether legislative or executive action is necessary to fill the long-standing void in regulating criminal negligence cases in the medical field.
The matter will be heard next after the Centre files its response.
Representation for the petitioner was undertaken by Senior Advocate Shadan Farasat, accompanied by Advocate Devansh Srivastava.
