Supreme Court Issues Notice on PIL Seeking Rules for Criminal Prosecution of Doctors in Medical Negligence Cases
Kiran Raj
The Supreme Court Division Bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta issued notice in a public interest litigation seeking a national framework for the criminal prosecution of doctors in medical negligence matters. The petition, moved by Sameeksha Foundation, traces its demand to the 2005 ruling in Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab, where the apex court had urged both central and state administrations to create formal guidelines for prosecuting doctors in cases of alleged negligence. The plea argues that despite the court’s clear signal — now nearly 20 years old — no statutory or executive framework has been officially finalised or circulated, leaving a major accountability gap in medical negligence prosecutions.
The petitioners also referenced an RTI reply issued by the National Medical Commission confirming that draft guidelines are still “under process.” A strong note of concern appears in the petition, reproduced by the Court record, linking the delay to the broader question of patient rights and justice.
The petition quotes the Court’s ruling from para 52 of Jacob Mathew, where the Supreme Court stated: “Statutory Rules or Executive Instructions incorporating certain guidelines need to be framed and issued by the Government of India and/or the State Governments in consultation with the Medical Council of India. So long as it is not done, we propose to lay down certain guidelines for the future which should govern the prosecution of doctors for offences of which criminal rashness or criminal negligence is an ingredient.”
“A private complaint may not be entertained unless the complainant has produced prima facie evidence before the Court in the form of a credible opinion given by another competent doctor to support the charge of rashness or negligence on the part of the accused doctor.”
“The investigating officer should, before proceeding against the doctor accused of rash or negligent act or omission, obtain an independent and competent medical opinion preferably from a doctor in government service qualified in that branch of medical practice who can normally be expected to give an impartial and unbiased opinion applying Bolam [1957] 1 W.L.R. 582, test to the facts collected in the investigation.”
“A doctor accused of rashness or negligence, may not be arrested in a routine manner (simply because a charge has been levelled against him). Unless his arrest is necessary for furthering the investigation or for collecting evidence or unless the investigation officer feels satisfied that the doctor proceeded against would not make himself available to face the prosecution unless arrested, the arrest may be withheld.”
Building on the 2005 ruling, Sameeksha Foundation argues that the continued lack of formal rules has created structural barriers in pursuing criminal cases against doctors for medical negligence.
The petition stresses that, in the absence of statutory or executive instructions, medical negligence prosecutions become legally fragile because they lean almost entirely on expert inquiry committees — panels overwhelmingly made up of doctors. The Foundation submits that although families of patients frequently approach law enforcement with police complaints, only a tiny fraction translate into FIR registration, as complainants struggle to access independent, neutral medical findings that can satisfy procedural thresholds.
The petition further contends that while doctors carry indemnity insurance to shield themselves in civil liability claims, they simultaneously benefit from professional self-regulation when it comes to criminal law exposure. Calling the process institutionally insular, the petition claims that doctors continue to be ring-fenced by a culture of peer evaluation — described in the plea as “Doctors Judging Doctors” and likened to seeking “Appeal from Ceaser to Ceaser's wife.”
Raising concerns of possible partiality, the petitioner also states that medical opinions obtained from one doctor to assess another’s alleged negligence may not always be insulated from professional bias. In this context, the PIL records the following claim in the Court filings: “The said position stands vindicated by 73rd Parliamentary Standing Committee Report on Health and Family Welfare (referred hereinafter) which states that there are reports that the medical professionals probing into the allegations of medical negligence are very lenient towards their colleagues guilty of negligence and none of them is willing to testify another Doctor as negligent. The immediate impact of this arrangement is that the percentage of prosecution in the medical negligence cases by the MCI is almost negligible.”
The petition also draws attention to the Parliamentary Standing Committee’s 73rd report examining “The Indian Medical Council (Amendment) Bill, 2013', which had recommended that medical negligence inquiries not be restricted to medical professionals alone, but be handled by a multidisciplinary committee including experts from varied backgrounds — such as social activists and patient representatives — to ensure independence, fairness and wider public participation.
The PIL adds that medical negligence remains a recurring topic of parliamentary questioning, but has routinely been met with the position that complaints of professional misconduct against a Registered Medical Practitioner can be escalated to the relevant Medical Council under the ethical framework set under Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics Regulations 2002 (now operating under the National Medical Commission Act, 2019). The petition also notes that negligence-related mortality data is not tracked centrally by any one government body.
Adding weight to its argument on criminal accountability, the petitioner includes the following statement in its submission: “In any other situation but for the preventable death caused by gross medical negligence within the precincts of the hospitals/nursing homes, the death so caused would have amounted to an offence of 'murder' liable for punishment under the criminal laws.”
Beyond prosecution procedure, the petition also flags alleged concerns around unethical practices in the healthcare system, citing media reports related to suspected kidney trafficking networks, pharmaceutical-doctor industry influence, freebies and incentives, profit-driven doctor-diagnostic centre linkages, and rising instances of avoidable or potentially unwarranted medical interventions — including bypass surgeries, stenting, Caesarean sections, knee replacements, extended hospital stays and improper ventilator use.
Relying on research material available through the National Library of Medicine, the petition contends that incidents of alleged medical malpractice in India may reach as many as 5.2 million cases annually across healthcare facilities. The plea underscores the contrast between this estimate and police data compiled by the National Crime data agency, the National Crime Records Bureau, which recorded a total of 1,019 deaths attributed to medical negligence between 2017 and 2022 — a number the petition describes as disproportionately small when viewed against the broader scale of reported medical harm.
The PIL concludes by recommending reforms to inquiry panel composition, suggesting that accountability committees include not just medical experts, but also voices from patient advocacy organisations, retired judges, former administrative officers, members nominated by the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC), academic professionals and independent investigators, along with human rights representatives — as a means to secure public trust, transparency and procedural integrity in medical negligence prosecutions.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Mr. Shadan Farasat, Sr. Adv., Mr. Vikas Maini, Adv., Mr. Ankit Banati, Adv., Mr. Devansh Srivastava, AOR, Mr. Deepak Pandey, Adv., Ms. Sama, Adv.
Case Title: SAMEEKSHA FOUNDATION-A CRUSADE AGAINST MEDICAL NEGLIGENCE VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ANR.
Case Number: Writ Petition(s)(Civil) No. 1080/2025
Bench: Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sandeep Mehta
