Should the SC Establish a Statutory Framework for Medical Negligence Prosecution?
Click to start listening
Synopsis
A public interest litigation has been filed in the Supreme Court, pressing for a statutory framework to address medical negligence. The plea highlights a two-decade delay in legislative action, emphasizing the need for unbiased investigations to ensure justice for victims of medical malpractice.
Key Takeaways
- Public Interest Litigation seeks regulations for medical negligence prosecution.
- 20-year delay in implementing Jacob Mathew judgment.
- Calls for unbiased inquiry panels to assess negligence cases.
- Emphasizes the need for accountability in the medical field.
- Aims to uphold Article 21 of the Constitution.
New Delhi, Nov 30 (NationPress) A public interest litigation (PIL) has been presented to the Supreme Court, urging the Centre and all state governments to develop statutory regulations for prosecuting cases of criminal medical negligence, as required by the apex court nearly two decades ago in the pivotal Jacob Mathew ruling.
The petition highlighted a "20-year-long inaction" by the authorities despite the Supreme Court's directive on August 5, 2005, demanding that both the Union and state governments establish statutory rules or executive guidelines for prosecuting doctors involved in criminal negligence cases.
Describing the delay as "disheartening and disappointing", the petition asserted that "the nation has been waiting for over 20 years" for the essential rules, which "have yet to be formulated and announced even after two decades since the Jacob Mathew ruling".
The plea criticized the allegedly biased investigative system, where claims of medical negligence are evaluated by committees dominated by doctors.
"In the absence of statutory regulations or executive guidance as mandated by the Jacob Mathew ruling, and under the current system of Inquiry Committees primarily composed of doctors, the medical investigation reports often lack impartiality," stated the PIL, adding that "numerous innocent individuals suffer torturous, agonizing, and often fatal outcomes in hospitals each year due to severe medical negligence".
The petition expressed that families of patients are left "completely powerless", as "there is hardly any hope for justice for victims of severe medical negligence in an environment of 'doctors judging doctors', which clearly favors their professional community".
It referenced a response from the National Medical Commission (NMC) via an RTI, confirming that "no such guidelines have been established" and that the process "is ongoing".
Additionally, the petition cited the 73rd Parliamentary Standing Committee Report (2013), which noted that medical professionals investigating negligence cases are "very lenient towards their peers" and that "none are willing to testify against another doctor as negligent", leading to "almost negligible" prosecution rates.
NCRB data indicated only "shocking and unbelievable" 1,019 cases of death due to medical negligence over the past six years in a nation of over 1.4 billion citizens.
Calling for urgent intervention, the petition, filed through advocate Devansh Srivastava, argued that "every human life is invaluable" and that preventable fatalities in hospitals "cannot be dismissed merely as disciplinary matters".
The PIL requested that the Supreme Court issue time-sensitive directives to ensure the swift formulation and announcement of the necessary regulations as ordered in the Jacob Mathew ruling; create multi-stakeholder inquiry panels, including retired judges, civil society representatives, patient advocates, NHRC nominees, and independent experts, instead of committees made up solely of doctors; and implement accountability measures to ensure that instances of severe medical negligence resulting in death are investigated fairly and prosecuted effectively.
The PIL asserted that such reforms are crucial to uphold Article 21 of the Constitution, arguing that the right to life inherently includes the right to a fair and impartial investigation into deaths caused by criminal medical negligence. According to the causelist published on the apex court's website, a panel of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta will hear the matter on Monday (December 1).
Point of View
It is critical to recognize the urgent need for legislative action regarding medical negligence. The current system, which allows doctors to review each other's conduct, raises significant concerns about impartiality. There must be a balanced approach that prioritizes patient rights and ensures accountability within the medical community. Upholding the right to life, as enshrined in our Constitution, must take precedence in shaping health policies.
NationPress
30/11/2025
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the purpose of the PIL filed in the Supreme Court?
The PIL aims to compel the Centre and state governments to create statutory rules for prosecuting criminal medical negligence, addressing a long-standing gap in legal accountability.
What is the Jacob Mathew judgment?
The Jacob Mathew ruling is a landmark judgment by the Supreme Court that outlined the need for a statutory framework for addressing medical negligence cases.
Why is the inquiry system criticized?
The inquiry system is criticized for being dominated by doctors, which can lead to biased assessments of negligence cases, leaving victims without justice.
What are the implications of the delay in framing rules?
The delay means that victims of medical negligence often do not receive justice, as the current system lacks impartial guidelines for prosecution.
What reforms does the PIL propose?
The PIL proposes establishing multi-stakeholder inquiry panels and accountability mechanisms to ensure fair and unbiased investigations into medical negligence cases.
