Supreme Court of India
SAVELIFE FOUNDATION & ANR.versusUNION OF INDIA & ANR.
- Citation
- 2016 INSC 289
- Decided
- 30 March 2016
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
- Bench
- V GOPALA GOWDA
Holding
The Supreme Court may issue binding guidelines and directions under Article 32 read with Article 142, which attain the force of law under Article 141, to protect Good Samaritans until a proper legislation is enacted.
Summary
The SaveLife Foundation filed a public‑interest writ petition seeking a legal framework to protect by‑standers who assist victims of road accidents, arguing that fear of police harassment deters timely help. The Supreme Court examined whether it could, under Articles 32, 141 and 142 of the Constitution, issue binding guidelines and a standard operating procedure (SOP) for the protection of "Good Samaritans" pending enactment of a specific statute. The Court held that such guidelines, issued by the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways and modified by the Court, have the force of law and must be complied with by all States and Union Territories. It clarified that the guidelines do not prejudice the driver’s liability under Section 134 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and that Good Samaritans should not be compelled to appear in court unless necessary. The Court directed the issuance of acknowledgements, modification of examination procedures, and wide publicity of the scheme, and allowed the writ petition.
Issues considered
- Can the Supreme Court, under Article 32 read with Article 142, issue binding guidelines and directions to protect Good Samaritans pending legislative action?
- Do the guidelines and SOP issued by the Ministry acquire the force of law under Article 141?
- Do the guidelines affect the liability of the driver under Section 134 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988?
- May a Good Samaritan be compelled to appear before a court for examination?
- Are the guidelines enforceable across all States and Union Territories?
Legislation cited
Subjects
Good SamaritanRoad accidentsPolice harassmentGuidelinesStandard Operating ProcedureArticle 21Article 14Article 32Article 141Article 142Article 144Motor Vehicles ActCivil liabilityCriminal liabilityPublic interest litigation
Judgment
[2016] 2 S.C.R. 45
SAVELIFE FOUNDATION & ANR. A
v.
UNION OF INDIA & ANR.
(Writ Petition (C) No. 235 of 2012)
MARCH 30, 2016 B
[V. GOPALA GOWDA AND ARUN MISHRA, JJ.]
Constiturion of India, 1950 - Arts 321142, 141, 21114 -
Protection of samarilans-bystanders and passers-by who render help
to the victims of road accidents - Development of supportive legal
framework - Constitution of Commitlee lo develop guidelines for
c
protecting Good Samaritans from police harassment and legal
hassles - Acceptance of the recommendations of the Committee by
the Ministry - Issuance of Notifications laying down 'Good
Samaritan Guidelines and standard operating procedures to be
issued for examination of good Samaritans by the police or during D
trial - Prayer by the Ministry that the guidelines notified be declared
to be enforceable by this Court so t11a/ it is binding on all the States
and Union Territories until the l.Ji1ion Government enacts a law to
this ~/feet - Held: This Court can issue guidelines and directions
by including a command jiJr its compliance till such time a proper
E
legislation is enacted - Issuance of such directions under Art 321
142 to i1111>le111ent and e11fi1rce the guidelines necessmy for protection
ofrig/11.1 under Art 21114 so as lo provide immediate help to the
victims of the accident and protection lo Good Samaritans -
Guidelines will have the force of/aw u!Art 141 - Guidelines with
certain modifications be complied with by the Union Territories and F
all the functionaries of the State Governments as law laid doll'n by
this Court under Art 321142 and be treated as binding as per the
mandate of Art. 141.
Allowing the writ petition, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The guidelines and directions can be issued by G
this Court including a command for compliance of guidelines and
standard operating procedure issued by Government of India,
Ministry of Road Trans11ort and Highways, till such time as the
legislature steps in to substitute them by proper legislation. This
Court can issue such directions under Article 32 read with Article H
45
46 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 2 S.C.R.
A 142 to implement and enforce the guidelines which are necessary
for protection of rights under Article 21 read with Article 14 of
the Constitution of India so as to provide immediate help to the
victims of the accident and at the same time to provide protection
to Good Samaritans. The guidelines will have the force of law
under Article 141. By virtue of Article 144, it is the duty of all
B
authorities-judicial aud civil-in the territory of India to act in aid
of this Court by implementing them. [Para 18] [62-E-F)
1.2 In the notification dated 12.5.2015, the guidelines
contained in para 13, the 'acknowledgement' if so desired by Good
Samaritans, has to be issued as may be prescribed in a sh111ch1rd
c format by the State Government. Till such time the format is
prescribed, there should be no vacuum hence it is directed that
acknowledgement be issued on official letter-pad etc. and in the
interregnum period, if so desired by Good Samaritan, mentioning
the name of Samaritan, address, time, date, place of occurrence
D and confirming that the injured person was brought by the said
Samaritan. [Para 19) [62-G-H; 63-A)
1.3 The notification dated 21.1.2016 with respect to the
examination of Good Samaritan by the Police as contained in para
2{vii) is modified and would be read in the following manner that
E the affidavit of Good Samaritan if filed, shall be treated as complete
statement by the Police official while conducting the investigation.
In case statement is to be recorded, complete statement shall be
recorded in a single examination." Remaining guidelines in the
notifications dated 12.5.2015 and 21.1.2016 are approved and it
is ordered that guidelines with said modifications be complied
F with by the Union Territories and all the functionaries of the State
Governments as law laid down by this Court under Article 32
read with Article 142 of the Constitution of India and the same
be treated as binding as per the mandate of Article 141. [Para
19] [63-A-D]
G 1.4 It is directed that the court should not normally insist
on appearance of Good Samaritans as that causes delay, expenses
and inconvenience. Tlte concerned court should exercise the
power to appoint the Commission for examination of Good
Samaritans in accordance with the provisions contained in section
284 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 suo motu or on an
H
SAVELIFE FOUNDATION v. UNION OF INDIA 47
application moved for that purpose, unless for the reasons to be A
recorded personal presence of good Samaritan in court is
considered necessary. [Para 20] [63-D-E]
1.5 Affidavits have been filed on behalf of State of Tripura
and State of Orissa. They have issued the notification. However,
the treatment shall not be less favourable than the one as provided B
in the said guidelines which are issued by the Ministry of Road
Transport & Highways which have been made a part of this Order,
and the guidelines issued by the state Governments in consonance
thereof shall also be binding upon all concerned to be complied
with scrupulously. However, it is clarified that guidelines in relation
to protection of a Good Samaritan are without prejudice to the C
liability of the driver of a motor vehicle involved in a road accident
as specified under section 134 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 198S.
[Para 21] [63-F-G)
1.6 It is directed that the scheme framed by the Central
Government and this order be widely published through electronic D
media and print media for the benefit of public so that public is
made aware and that serves as impetus to good Samaritans to
extend timely help and protection conferred upon them without
incurring the risk of harassment. [Para 23) [64-B)
Lakshmi Kant Pandey v. Union of India (1984) 2 SCC E
244: 1984 (2) SCR 795; D.K. Basu '" S1a1e of W.B.
(1997) 1 sec 416: 1996 (10) Suppl. SCR 284;
Vishaka and Ors. v. Slate of Rajasthan & Ors. (1997) 6
SCC 241: 1997 (3) Suppl. SCR 404; Vineet Narain &
Ors. v. Union of India & Anr. (1998) 1 SCC 226:1997 F
(6) Suppl. SCR 595; Union of 111dia v. Association for
Democratic Reforms & Anr. (2002) 5 SCC 294:2002
(3) SCR 696; Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan
alias Pappu Yadav & Anr. (2005) 3 SCC 284: In
Common Cause v. Union of India (2015) 7 SCC 1:2015
(5) SCR 29 - Referred to. G
Case Law Reference
19lM (2) SCR 795 Referred to Para 13
1996 (10) Suppl. SCR 284 Referred to Para 14
1997 (3) Suppl. SCR 404 Referred to Para 15 H
48 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 2 S.C.R.
A 1997 (6) Suppl. SCR 595 Referred to Para 16
2002 (3) SCR 696 Referred to Para 17
(2005) 3 sec 2s4 Referred to Para 17
2015 (5) SCR 29 Referred to Para 17
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition (Civil) No.
B 235of2012
[UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA]
Kush Chaturvedi, Adv., for the Petitioners.
Pinky Anand, ASG, C.D. Singh, AAG, Sunita Sharma, S.S. Rawat,
C A.K. Panda, R.K. Rathore, R.R. Rajesh, Anshuman Srivastava, Rishabh
Jain, D.S. Mahra, Gaurav Agrawal, Ms. Ruchi Kohli, Ms. Sharmila
Upadhyay, Guntur Prabhakar, Ms. Prerna Singh, Kaushal Narayan
Mishra, Nishant Ramakantrao Katneshwarkar, S. Udaya Kumar Sagar,
Krishna Kumar Singh, Navnit Kumar, Riku Sanna, (For Mis Corporate
D Law Group), Pawan Upadhyay, Sarvjit Pratap Singh, V.G. Pragasam, S.
Prabu Ramasubramanian, Joydeep Mazumdar, Parijat Sinha, Debojyoti
Bhattacharya, Roh it Dutta, Sapam Biswajit Meitei, Ms. B. Khushbansi,
Vijayanand Shanna, Ashok Kumar Singh, Mrs. K. Enatoli Serna, Edward
Behlo, Amit Kumar Singh, Rahul Kaushik, Ms. Bhuvneshwari Pathak
Kaushik, Ms. Shilpi Satya Priya Satyam, Sanjay Kr. Yisen, Ms. Aruna
E Mathur, Avneesh Arputham, Yusuf Khan, Ms. Anuradha Arputham, Udit
A., Tapesh Kr. Singh, Mohd. Waquas, K.V. Jagdishvaran, Mrs. G. Indira,
Anurag Kashyap, Ad vs. with them for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
ARUN MISHRA, J. I. The petition has been filed under
F
Article 32 of the Constitution of India in public interest for the
development of supportive legal framework to protect Samaritans i.e.
bystanders and passers-by who render the help to the victims of road
accidents. These individuals 1;an play a significant role in order to save
lives of the victims by either immediately rushing them to the hospital or
G providing immediate life saving first aid.
2. The petitioner is 'SaveLife Foundation', a non-profit, non-
governmental organization registered as a Public Charitable Trust and
had been established in 2008. The petitioner aims to create a unique
network of medical responders to come to the victim's aid. The petitioner
H
SAVELIFE FOUNDATION v. UNION OF INDIA 49
[ARUN MISHRA, J.l
has also drafted recommendations to address the critical deficiencies in A
the Motor Vehicles Act, and other laws governing road safety.
3. The Department of Road Tr6nsport is responsible for framing
motor vehicle legislation and evolving road safety standards in India.
The WHO in its 'World Report on Road Traffic Injury Prevention, 2004'
has projected that by 2020, road accidents will be one of the biggest B
killers in India. It also emphasiz_ed that in low income countries, the
most common desisting factor restraining the public from coming forward
to help victims, is the apparent fear of being involved in police cases.
There is need to build confidence amongst the public to help road accident
victims. Bystanders should not be insisted to divulge their personal
particulars or detained in the hospital for interrogation. People are hesitant
c
to render immediate help to the road accident victims. The victims lay
wounded on the road for some time till the arrival of police. Delay
rendering medical help in such cases sometimes is fatal. Good
Samaritans have the fear of legal consequences, involvement in litigation
and repeated visits to police station. There is urgent need to tackle D
these issues. There is need to establish legal framework so that Good
Samaritan is empowered to act without any fear of adverse
consequences or harassment. Save life must be the top priority.
4. Several countries have enacted such laws. In England and
Wales, the Parliament has enacted the Social Action, Responsibility E
and Heroism Act 2015 which provides for certain factors to be
considered by the Court while hearing an action for negligence or breach
of duty. Section 2 of the Act provides that the Court must consider whether
the respondent was acting for the benefit of society or any ofits members.
Section 5 of the Act further provides that the Court must consider
whether the respondent was acting heroically by intervening in an F
emergency to assist an individual in danger. In Ireland, section 51 D of
the Civil L011• (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2011 provides that a
good Samaritan will not be liable in negligence for any act done in
emergency to help person in serious and imminent danger. In Australia,
protection to good Samaritan is provided in several states. In New South G
Wales and Victoria, for instance, a good Samaritan is protected from
personal civil liability with respect to anything done in state of emergency
or accident by virtue of Civil Liability Act 2002 and Wrongs Act 1958
respectively. In Canada, various states like Ontario, Alberta and British
Columbia offer protection to good Samaritans. In Ontario, the Good
H
50 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2016] 2 S.C.R.
A Sa111arita11 Act 2001, by Section 2 {I), provides that except for gross
negligence, a person is not liable for damages resulting from his acts
during aid in emergency. Similar protection is provided in states ofAlberta,
British Columbia and Nova Scotia by Emergency Medical Aid Act,
Good Samaritan Act and Volunteer Services Act respectively. Similar
protection to good Samaritans is to be found in different states' laws in
B
the USA. States of Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California and
New York, to name a few, provide that if a person lends emergency
assistance or service to another person in good faith, he is not liable in
civil damages with respect to his act or omission.
5.Accident cases require fastest care and rescue which could be
c provided by those closest to the scene of the accident. Bystanders clear
support is essential to enhance the chances of survival of victim in the
'Golden Hour' i.e. the first hour of the injury. As per the WHO India
Recommendations, 50% of the victims die in the first 15 minutes due to
serious cardiovascular or nervous system injuries and the rest can be
D saved through by providing basic life support during the 'Golden Hour'.
Right to life is enshrined under Atticle 21 which includes right to safety
of persons while travelling on the road and the immediate medical
assistance as a necessary corollary is required to be provided and also
adequate legal protection and prevention from harassment to good
Samaritans.
E
6. ln letter dated 9.9.2004, Joint Secretary, Department of Road
Transport and Highways addressed to all the State Governments and
Union Territories, it has been highlighted that the WHO in its World
Report on Road Traffic Injury Prevention, 2004 has pointed out that
"while in high-income countries, there is a reasonably well-organised
F ambulance based rescue system, in middle and low-income countries,
assistance by bystanders is most common. In our c0u1itry, while
organizing of trauma care apart of intervention is also required, there is
another factor, namely, relative iignorance on part of public to come
forward to help the road crash victims, for apparent fear that they might
G be involved in "police cases." The letter further states that Research
shows that a numberofthe accident victims can be saved if they receive
immediate medical attention." The letter also admits that due to fearof
harassment people do not always come forward to attend them."
The Department of Road Transport and Highways had also sent
H
letter dated 19.2.2004 to the States and Union Territories enclosing a
SAVELIFE FOUNDATION v. UNION OF INDIA 5I
fARUN MISHRA, J.]
Circular issued by the police authorities in Delhi in order to build confidence A
in the public for helping road accident victims. The Circular stated that
it is likely that the person who brings the injured to the hospital would
hesitate to provide his particulars, and in such a case, it should not be
insisted upon. Furthermore, it was also stated therein that the escorters
or the person who bring the victims to the hospital should, under no
B
circumstances, be detained in the hospital for interrogation. It was
suggested in the said letter that action on similar lines may be considered
by the States and UTs.
7. The people have the notion that touching the body could lend
them liable for police. interrogation. Passerby plays safe and chose to
wait for the police to arrive whereas injured gradually bleeds to death. c
People are reluctant to come forward for help despite, desperate attempts
to get help from passerby, by and large they turn blind eyes to the person
in distress. Sometimes those who help are rebuked due to ignorance by
the others on touching the scene. In the case of a convoy even when
there are several vehicles in the convoy, people wait for the ambulance D
to arrive and also for the concerned police help. There are several
desisting factors which are required to be taken care of such as fear of
legal consequences if once action is ineffective or harmful to victim,
fear of involvement in subsequent prolonged investigation and visit to
the police station. There is need to evolve the system by promptly
providing effective care system with certain ethical and legal principles. E
It is absolutely necessary that Good Samaritans feel empowered to act
without fear of adverse consequence. There is need to provide certain
incentives to Good Samaritans. There is also dire need to enact a Good
Samaritan Law in the country since there is a felt need oflegislation for
affording protection to Good Samaritans. F
8. While issuing notice on 17.8.2012, this Court has observed:
"It remains undisputed before us that it is not insufficiency of law
but it is implementation of Jaw which is a..matter of concern.
Different guidelines including guidelines for ambulance Code,
emergency care and appropriate directions to the hospitals on the G
highways for handling the accident trauma patients, as a top priority
are stated to have been issued.
Learned counsel appearing for the parties submit that an
expert committee would need to be constituted to monitor the
various directions issued for their due compliance. H
52 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 2 S.C.R.
A Learned counsel for the parties even propose to make joint
suggestions in this regard aft1~r consulting the relevant Ministries
and NHA. The counsel appearing forthe petitioner has vehemently
argued that the joint suggestions now to be filed should also consider
the directions and safeguards that could be provided to the passers-
by or informers of the accident. This will even help the expeditious
B
disposal of criminal cases. Let this aspect be also examined by
the learned counsel appearing for the parties who are to submit
the joint suggestions."
9. This Court vide order dated 11.12.2012 has constituted a
Committee consisting of-.8 members and to submit the suggestions before
c this Court. The members of the said Committee are as follows:
I. Additional Secretary of Ministry of Home Affairs;
2. Secretary and or his nominee, Ministry of Health and Family
Welfare to be nominated in consultation with Directorate
D General Health Services;
3. Secretary and or his nominee from Ministry of Law and
Justice;
4. Jt. Commissioner (Traffic)- Delhi Police;
5. Chief of the AllMS Trauma Centre;
E
6. The Director General or his nominee not below the rank of
the Additional Director General of the Protection Road
Organizations;
7. Save Life foundation representative;
F 8. Mr. M.P. Tiwari or his nominee from any of the NAOS
John Ambulance representative.
The scope of reference of the Committee inter alia included
following aspects with which we are concerned in the instant matter;
G "(ix) Identify the root causf:s for fear of harassment and legal
hassles in general public regarding helping injured victims.
(x) Deliberate and develop a set of guidelines for protecting
Good Samaritans from police harassment and legal hassles.
The guidelines will aim to address the root causes for fear
ofharasslnent and legal hassles in general public regarding
H
SAVELIFE FOUNDATION v. UNION OF INDIA 53
fARUN MISHRA, J.]
helping injured victims. These guidelines will also serve as A
a foundation for further legislative work in the area of
protecting Good Samaritans."
The Committee was required to submit report to this Court within
three months. On 14.8.2014, this Court passed an order to have the
views of concerned ministries of Union oflndia. This Court observed in B
order dated 24.9.2014 that in this petition the only issue which'is required
to be addressed is with regard to 'Good Samaritans'. All other issues
that arise in the writ petition have already been referred to the Committee
headed by Mr. Justice K.S. Radhakrishnan, former Judge of this Court.
10. This Court on 29.10.2014 has passed an order in view of c
affid~vit filed on behalf of Ministry of Road Transport and Highways
wherein it has been stated that the recommendation made in the Skandan
Committee's report regarding protection of good Samaritans has been
accepted by the said ministry and also by Ministry of Law & Justice.
This Court directed both the ministries in consultation with each other to
issue necessary directions with regard to protection of good Samaritans D
until appropriate legislation is made by the Union Legislature.
On 7.8.2015, this Court has noted that notification dated 12.5.2015
laying down 'Good Samaritan Guidelines' has been issued by the Ministry
of Road Transport and Highways, Government of India. Suggestions
were invited so as to give more teeth to th.e guidelines. E
On 27.11.2015, this Court was infonned by the learned Additional
Solicitor General that the suggestions given have been incorporated in
the form of Standard Operating Procedure which has been issued as an
Office Memorandum. The views of Ministry of Health and Family
Welfare, Ministry of Home Affairs and Ministry of Law and Justice are F
awaited. This Court issued a direction to look into the possibility of
giving statutory status to the Standard Operating Procedure either in the
form ofa notification or regulations or guidelines.
11. The Ministry of Road Transport and Highways has issued a
notification containing guidelines on 12.5.2015 published in the Gazette G
of India para I of Section .1 of the Notification dated 12.5.2015 for
protection of good Samaritans and a further Notification has been issued
on 21. i .2016 in accordance with para I(7) and I (8) of the guidelines
dat~d 12.?.2015 which required standard operating procedures to be
framed and issued for examination of good Samaritans by the police or· H
54 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 2 S.C.R.
A during trial. It has been mentioned in the affidavit filed by Ministry of
Road Transport and Highways, Government oflndia that in the absence
ofany statutory backing, it is felt that it will be difficult to enforce these
guidelines issued on 12.5.20 I 5 and standard operating procedures as
"notified on 21.1.2016. It has also been mentioned that the notified
guidelines in relation to protection of a bystander or good Samaritan are
B
without prejudice to the liability of the driver of a motor vehicle involved
in the road accident, as specified under section I 34 of the Motor Vehicles
Act, 1988.
Notification dated 12.5.2015 issued by th~ Ministry of Road Transport
and Highways containing guidelines for protection of good Samaritans
c to be in force till appropriate legislation is framed by Union Legislature,
is extracted hereunder:
"No.25035/! 0 I /20 I 4-RS.-Whereas the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in the· case of Save life Foundation and another V/s. Union Of
India and another in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 235of2012 vide its
D order dated 29th October, 2014, interalia, directed the Central
Government to issue necessary directions with regard to the
protection of Good Samaritans until appropriate legislation is made
by the Union Legislature;
And whereas, the Central Government considers it necessary to
E protect the Good Samaritans from harassment on the actions being
taken by tlTem to save the life of the road accident yictims and,
therefore, the Central Government hereby issues, the following
guidelines to be followed by hospitals, police and all other authorities
for the protection ofGooa Samaritans, namely:-
F
!. (I) A bystander or good Samaritan including an eyewitness of
a road accident may tak~ an injured person to the nearest hospital, ·
and the bystander or good Samaritan should be allowed to leave
immediately except after fornishing address by the eyewitness
only and no question shall be asked to such bystander or good
Samaritan. ·
G (2) The bystander or good Samaritan shall be suitably rewarded
or com'pensated to encourage other citizens to come forward to
help the road accident victims by the authorities in the manner as
may be specified by the State Governments.
(3) The bystander or good Samaritan shall not be liable for any
H civil and criminal liability.
SAVELIFE FOUNDATION v. UNION CJF INDIA 55
[ARUN MISHRA, J.]
(4) A bystander or good Samaritan, who makes a phone call to A
inform the police or emergency serVices for the person lying injured
on the road, shall not be compelled to reveal his name and personal
details on the phone or in person.
(5) The disclosure of personal information, such as name and
contact details of the good Samaritan shall be made voluntary and B
optional including in the Medico Legal Case (MLC) Form provided
by hospitals.
(6) The disciplinary or departmental action shall be initiated by
the Government concerned against public officials who coerce or
intimidate a bystander or good Samaritan for revealing his name
or personal details. C
(7) In case a bystander or good Samaritan, who has voluntarily
stated that he is also an eye-witness to th.e accident and is required
to be examined for the purposes of investigation by the police or
during the trial, such bystander or good Samaritan shall be
examined on a single occasion and the State Government shall D
develop standard operating procedures to ensure that bystander
or good Samaritan is not harassed or intimidated. ·
(8) The methods of examination may either be by way of a
commission under section 284, ofthe Code of Criminal Procedure
1973 or formally on affidavit as per section 296, of the said Code E
and Standard Operating Procedures shall be developed within a
period of thirty days from the date when this notification is issued.
(9) Video conferencing may be used extensively during examination
of bystander or good Samaritan including the persons referred to
in guideline (1) above, who are eye witnesses in order to prevent
F
harassment and inconvenience to good Samaritans.
( 10) The Ministry of Health and Family Welfare shall issue
guidelines stating that all registered public and private hospitals
are not to detain bystander or good Samaritan or demand ~ayment
for registration and admission costs, unless the good Samaritan is
a fanrily member or relative of the injured and the injured is to be G
treated immediately in pursuance of the order of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Pt. Parmanand Katara vs Union of.India &
Ors (1989] 4 sec 286.
( 11) Lack of response by a doctor in an emergency situation
pertaining to road accidents; where he is expected to provide care, H
56 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 2 S.C.R.
A shall constitute ·'Professional Misconduct", under Chapter 7 of
the Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and
Ethics) Regulation, 2002 and disciplinary action shall be taken
against such doctor under Chapter 8 of the said Regulations.
( 12) All hospitals shall publish a charter in Hindi, English and the
B vernacular language oflhe State or Union territory at their entrance
to the effect that they shall not detain bystander or good Samaritan
or ask depositing money from them for the treatment of a victim.
( 13) In case a bystander or good Samaritan so desires, the hospital
shall provide an acknowledgement to such good Samaritan,
c confirming that an injured person was brought to the hospital and
the time and place of such occurrence and the acknowledgement
may be prepared in a standard format by the State Government
and disseminated to all hospitals in the State for incentivising the
bystander or good Samaritan as deemed fit by the State
Government. ·
D
( 14)All public and private hospitals shall implement these guidelines
immediately and in case of noncompliance or violation of these
guidelines appropriate action shall be taken by the concerned
authorities.
E (15) A letter containing these guidelines shall be issued by the
Central Government and the State Government to all Hospitals
and Institutes under their respective jurisdiction, enclosing a Gazette
copy of this notification and ensure compliance and the Ministry
of Health and Family Welfare and Ministry of Road Transport
and Highways shall publish advertisements in all national and one
F regional newspaper including electronic media informing the general
public of these guidelines.
2. The above guidelines in relation to protection of bystander or
good Samaritan are without prejudice to the liability of the driver
of a motor vehicle in the road accident, as specified under section
G 134 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59of1988).
Sd/- Jt. Secy."
12 ..Para I (7) and I (8) of the guidelines dated 12.5.2015 required
standard operating procedure to be framed for the examination of the
good Samaritans. The Central Government, Ministry of Road Transport
H and Highways has issued notification on 21.1.2016 which is as under:
SAVELIFE FOUNDATION v. UNION OF INDIA 57
fARUN MISHRA, J.]
"No. RT-25035/101/2014-RS.-Whereas, the Hon'ble Supreme A
Court in the case of Save Life Foundation and another Vs Union
oflndia and another in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 23512012 vide its
order dated 29th October 2014, inter-alia, directed to issue
necessary directions with regard to the protection of Good
Samaritans until appropriate legislation is made by the Union
Legislature; 8
And whereas, the Central Government published the guidelines in
the Gazette oflndia, Extraordinary, Part I, Section I dated 12th
May 2015 for protection of the Good Samaritans, i.e. a person
who is a bystander or a passer-by, who chooses to assist an inju'red
person or a person in distress on the rpad; c
And whereas, as per para 1 (7) and (8) of the said guidelines
dated 12th May, 2015, Standard Operating Procedures are to be
framed forthe examination of Good Samaritans by the Police or
during trial;
And whereas, the Central Government considers it necessary to D
issue Standard Operating Procedure for the examination of Good
Samaritans by .the Police or during trial and here by issue the
following standard operating procedure, namely:-
!. 1. The Good Samaritan shall betreated respectfully and without
any discrimination on the grounds of gender, religion, nationality, E
caste or any other grounds.
2. Any person who makes a phone call to the Police control room
or Police station to give information about any accidental injury or
death, except an eyewitness may not reveal personal details such
as full name, address, phone number etc.
F
3. Any Police official, on arrival at the scene; shal I not compel the
Good Samaritan to disclose his I her name, identity, address and
other such details in the Record Fonn or Log Register.
4. Any Police official or any other person shall not force any
Good Samaritan who helps an injured person to become a witness
G
in the matter. The option of becoming a witness in the matter shall
solely rest with the Good Samaritan.
5. The concerned Police official( s) shall allow the Good Samarit!ln
to leave after having informed the Police about an injured person
on the road, and no further questions shall be asked ifthe Good
Samaritan does not desire to be a witness in the matter. H
58 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 2 S.C.R.
A 2. Examination of Good Samaritan by the Police
i. In case a Good Samaritan so chooses to be a witness, he shall
be examined. with utmost care and respect and without any
discrimination on the grounds of gender, religion, nationality, caste
or any other grounds.
B ii. In case a Good Samaritan chooses to be a witness, his
examination by the investigating officer shall, as far as possible,
be conducted at a time and place of his convenience such as his
place ofresidence or business, and the investigation officer shall
be dressed in plain clothes, unless the Good Samaritan chooses to
visit the police station.
c iii. Where the examination of the Good Samaritan.is not possible
to be conducted at a time and place of his convenience and the
Good Samaritan is required by the Investigation Officer to visit
the police station, the reasons for the same shall be recorded by
such officer in writing.
D iv. In case a Good Samaritan so chooses to visit the Police Station,
he shall be examined in a single examination in a reasonable and
time-bound manner, without causing any undue delay.
v. In case the Good Samaritan speaks a language other than the
language of the Investigating Officer or the local language of the
E respective jurisdiction, the Investigating Officer shall arrange for
~n interpreter.
vi. Where a Good Samaritan declares himself to be an eye-witness,
he shall be allowed to give his evidence on affidavit, in accordance
with section 296 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of
F 1974) which refers to Evidencf~ in Formal Character on Affidavit.
vii. The complete statement or affidavit of such Good Samaritan
shall be recorded by the Police official while conducting the
investigation in a single examination.
viii. In case the attendance of the Good Samaritan cannot be
procured without delay, expense or inconvenience which, under
G
the circumstances of the case, would be unreasonable, or his
examination is unable to take place at a time and place of his
convenience, the Court of Magistrate may appoint a commission
for the examination of the Good Samaritan in accordance with
section 284 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2of1974)
H on an application by the concerned.
\
SAVELIFE FOUNDATION v. UNION OF INDIA 59
fARUN MISHRA, J.l
3. The Superintendent of Police or Deputy Commissioner of Police A
or any other Police official ofcorresponding seniority heading the
Police force ofa District, as the case may be, shall be responsible
to ensure that all the above mentioned procedures are implemented
throughout their respective jurisdictions with immediate effect.
Sd/- Jt. Secretary." B
Prayer has been made on the part of the Ministry of Road Transport
and Highways of Government of India that the guidelines notified on
12.5.2015 and the standard operating procedure notified on 21.1.2016
may be declared to be enforceable by this Court so that it is binding on
all the States and Union Territories until the Union Government enacts a
law to this effect.
c
13. In Lakshmi Kant Pandey v. Union of India (1984) 2 SCC
244 in the matter of inter-country adoption and so as to prevent
malpractices and trafficking of children under the guise ofadoption, this
Court has laid down certain principles and norms to be followed in the D
cases of such adoption in detail, as there was absence of statutory
provisions with respect to inter-country adoptions.
14. In D.K. Basu v. State of WE. ( 1997) I SCC 416, this Court
considering the fact that the custodial violence, torture, rape, death in
police custody/lock-up infringes Article 21 as well as basic human rights
and strikes a blow at the rule of law, directions have been issued for E
compliance by Police personnel while arresting or detaining any person
as preventive measures in addition to constitutional and statutory
safeguards and previous directions of this Court.
15. Jn Vishaka and Ors. 1~ State of Rajasthan & Ors. (1997) 6
sec 241 considering the absence of enacted law to provide for effective F
enforcement of the basic rights to gender equality and guarantee against
sexual harassment and abuse, more particularly against sexual harassment
at workplaces, this Court has laid down guidelines and norms for due
observance at all work places or institutions until the legislation is enacted
for ~he _purpose. G
16. In Vineet Narain & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr. ( 1998) l
SCC 226 this Court has referred to various decisions in which guidelines
and directions have been issued in exercise of powers of this Court
under Article 32 read with Article 142. The relevant portion is extracted
hereunder:
H
60 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 2 S.C.R.
A "51. In exercise of the powers of this Court under Article 32 read
with Article 142, guidelines and directions have been issued in a
large number of cases and a brief reference to a few of them is
sufficient. In Erach Sam Kanga v. Union of India [WP No.2632
of 1978 decided on 20.3 .1979) the Constitution Bench laid down
certain guidelines relating to the Emigration Act. In Lakshmi Kant
B
Pandey v. Union of India (1984) 2 SCC 244 (In re, Foreign
Adoption), guidelines for adoption of minor children by foreigners
were laid down. Similarly in State ofW.B. v. Sampat Lal (1985)
1 SCC 317, K Veeraswami v. Union ofIndia ( 1991) 3 SCC 655,
Union Carbide Corpn. v. Union of India (1991) 4 SCC 584,
c Deihi Judicial Service Assn. v. State of Gujarat ( 1991) 4 SCC
406 (Nadiad case}, Delhi Development Authority v. Skipper
Construction Co. (PJ Ltd. ( 1996) 4 SCC 622 and Dinesh Trivedi,
MP. v. Union of India ( 1997) 4 SCC 306 guidelines were laid
down having the effect of law, requiring rigid compliance. In
Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Assn. v. Union of India
D
(1993) 4 SCC 441 (Ilnd Judges case) a nine-Judge Bench laid
down guidelines and norms for the appointment and transfer of
Judges which are being rigidly followed in the matter of
appointments of High Court and Supreme Court Judges and
transfer of High Court Judges. More recently in Vishaka v. State
E of Rajasthan ( 1997) 6 SCC 241 elaborate guidelines have been
laid down for observance in workplaces relating to sexual
harassment of working women. In Vishaka (supra) it was said:
(SCC pp. 249-50, para 11)
"11. The obligation of this Court under Article 32 of the
F Constitution for the enforcement of these fundamental rights
in the absence of legislation must be viewed along with the
role ofjudiciary envisaged in the Beijing Statement of Principles
of the Independence of the Judiciary in the LAWASIA region.
These principles were accepted by the Chief Justices of Asia
and the Pacific at Beijing in 1995 (*)(As amended at Manila,
G 28th August, 1997) as those representing the minimum
standards necessary to be -0bserved in order to maintain the
independence and effective functioning of the judiciary. The
objectives of the judiciary mentioned in the Beijing Statement
are:
H "Objectives ()f the Judiciary:
SAVELIFE FOUNDATION v. UNION OF !NOIA 61
fARUN MISHRA, J.l
I 0. The objectives and functions of the Judiciary include A
the following:
(a) to ensure that all persons are able to live securely under
the rule of law;
(b) to promote, within the proper limits ofthe judicial function,
the observance and the attainment of human rights; and B
(c) to administer the law impartially among persons and
between persons and the State."
Thus, an exercise of this kind by the court is now a well-settled
practice which has taken firm roots in our constitutional c
jurisprudence. This exercise is essential to fill the void in the absence
of suitable legislation to cover the field.
52. As pointed out in Vishaka (supra) it is the duty of the executive
to fill the vacuum by executive orders because its field is
coterminous with that of the legislature, and where there is inaction D
even by the executive, for whatever reason, the judiciary must
step in, in exercise of its constitutional obligations under the
aforesaid provisions to provide a solution till such time as the
legislature acts to perform its role by enacting proper legislation
to cover the field."
E
17. In U11ioi1 of India 1( Associatio11 for Democratic Reforms
·&Am: (2002) 5 SCC 294, the decisions in Vineet Narai11 (supra),
Vishaka (supra) and other decisions have been followed and this Court
has laid down the law that an exercise to fill the void in the absence of
suitable legislation is now a well-seitled practice which has taken firm
roots in our constitutional jurisprudence. Similar is the decision in Kalya11 F
Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan alias Pappu Yadav & A11r. (2005)
3 SCC 284. In Com111011 Cause v. Union of /11dia (2015) 7 SCC I, law
to the same effect has been reiterated thus :
"7. In the earlier order dated 23:4-2014 (2014) 6 SCC 552, this
Court, after holding that reasonableness and fairness consistent G
with Article 14 of the Constitution would be the ultimate test ofall
State activities proceeded to hold that the deployment of public
funds in any government activity which is not connected with a
· public purpose would justify judicial intervention. We would like
to say something more.
H
62 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 2 S.C.R.
A 8. Part IV of the Constitution is as much a guiding light for the
Judicial organ of the State as the Executive and the Legislative
arms, all three being integral parts of the "State" within the meaning
of Article 12 of the Constitution.AIR 1967 SC I, (1973) 4 SCC
225. A policy certainly cannot be axed for its alleged failure to
comply with any of the provisions of Part IV. Neither can the
B
courts charter a course, merdy on the strength of the provisions
of the said Part of the Constitution, ifthe effect thereof would be
to lay down a policy. However, in a situation where the field is
open and uncovered by any government policy, to guide Md control
everyday governmental action, surely, in the exercise ofjurisdiction
c under Article 142 of the Constitution, parameters can be laid down
by this Court consistent with the objects enumerated by any of
the provisiOns of Part IV. Such an exercise would be naturally
time-bound i.e. till the legislature or the executive; as the case
may be, steps in to fulfil its c:onstitutional role and authority by
framing an appropriate policy;"
D
18. In view of the aforesaid discussion, it is apparent that guidelines
and directions can be issued by this Court including a command for
compliance of guidelines and standard operating procedure issued by
Government of India, Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, till
such time as the legislature steps in to substitute them by proper legislation.
E This Court can issue such directions under Article 32 read with Article
142 to implement and enforce the guidelines which are necessary for
protection ofrights under Article 21 read with Article 14 ofthe Constitution
of India so as to provide immediate help to the victims of the accident
and at the same time to provide protection to Good Samaritans. The ·
F guidelines will have the force of law under Article 141. By, virtue of
Article 144, it is the duty of all authorities - judicial and civil - in the
territory oflndia to act in aid of this Court by implementing them.
19. We have carefully gone through the notification dated
12.5.2015. However, as per the guidelines contained in para 13, the
G 'acknowledgement' if so desired by Good Samaritans, has to be issued
as may be prescribed in a standard format by the State Government. In
our opinion, till such time the format is prescribed, there should be no
vacuum hence we direct that acknowledgement be issued on official
letter-pad etc. and in the interregnum period, if so desired by Good
Samaritan, mentioning the name of Samaritan, address, time, date, place
H
SAVELIFE tOUNDATION v. UNION OF INDIA 63
fARUN MISHRA, J.l
of occurrence and confirming that the injured person was brought by the A
said Samaritan.
We have also gone through the notification dated 2.J.1.2016 with
respect to the examination of Good Samaritan by the Pol ice as c.ontained
in para 2(vii) which we modify and be read in the following manner:
"The affidavit of Good Samaritan if filed, shall be treated as B
complete statement by the Police official while conducting the
investiga!ion. In case statement is to be recorded, complete
statement shall be recorded in a single examination."
Remaining guidelines in the notifications dated 12.5.2015 and
21.1.2016 are approved and it is ordere_d that guidelines with aforesaid c
modifications made by us be complied with.by the Union Territories and
all the functionaries of the State Governments as law laid down by this
·Court under Article 32 read with Article 142 of the Constitution oflndia
and the same be treated as binding as per the mandate of Article 141.
20. We also direct that the court should not normally insist on D
appearance of Good Samaritans ·as that causes delay, expenses and
inconvenience. The concerned court should exercise the power to appoint
the Commission for examination of Good Samaritans in accordance with
the provisions contained iri section 284 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 suo 1110111 or on an application moved for that purpose, unless for E
the reasons to be'recorded personal presence of good Samaritan in court
is considered necessary.
21. Affidavits have been filed on behalf of State of Tripura and
State ofOrissa. They have issued the notification. However, the treatment
shall not be less favourable than the one as provided in the aforesaid
F
guidelines which are issued by the Ministry of Road Transport &
Highways which have been made a part of this Order, and the guidelines
issued by the state Governments in consonance thereof shall also be
binding upon all concerned to be complied with scrupulously. However,
it is clarified that guidelines in relation to protection of a Good Samaritan
are without prejudice to the liability of the driver of a motor vehicle G
involved in a road accident as specified under section 134 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988.
22. We record our appreciation forthe efforts made in formulating
guidelines by all concerned, the members of Committee, concerned
Department, learned Solicitor General-and positive attitude of the counsel H
64 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 2 S.C.R.
A for the other parties who have readily agreed that guidelines be approved
and be enforced as binding till appropriate legislative provisions are made.
23. We also direct that the scheme framed by the Central
Government and this order be widely published through electronic media
and print media for the benefit of public so that public is made aware
B and that serves as impetus to good Samaritans to extend timely help and
protection conferred upon them without incurring the risk of harassment.
24. In view of the aforesaid directions, the writ petition stands
allowed. No order as to costs.
Nidhi Jain Writ petition allov.. cd.
1
c
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "Good Samaritan"Sign in to search