SAVELIFE FOUNDATION & ANR. versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR.
[2016] 2 S.C.R. 45, Supreme Court of India, 2016
Outcome: Appeal(s) allowed (Granted)
Segment: Issues
[2016] 2 S.C.R. 45 
SAVELIFE FOUNDATION & ANR. 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA & ANR. 
(Writ Petition (C) No. 235 of 2012) 
MARCH 30, 2016 
[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 
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 
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 
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
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 
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 
45 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H
46 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016] 2 S.C.R. 
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 
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 
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 
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 
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 
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] 
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
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 
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 
(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. 
19lM (2) SCR 795 
Case Law Reference 
Referred to 
1996 (10) Suppl. SCR 284 
Referred to 
1997 (3) Suppl. SCR 404 
Referred to 
Para 13 
Para 14 
Para 15 
E 
F 
G 
H
48 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016] 2 S.C.R. 
A 
1997 (6) Suppl. SCR 595 
2002 (3) SCR 696 
Referred to 
Referred to 
Referred to 
Referred to 
Para 16 
Para 17 
Para 17 
Para 17 
(2005) 3 sec 2s4 
2015 (5) SCR 29 
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. 
F 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
ARUN MISHRA, J. I. The petition has been filed under 
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. 
H 
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
SAVELIFE FOUNDATION v. UNION OF INDIA 
[ARUN MISHRA, J.l 
has also drafted recommendations to address the critical deficiencies in 
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 
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 
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 
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 
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 
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 
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 
49 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H
50 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2016] 2 S.C.R. 
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 of Alberta, 
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 
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 
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 
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. 
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 
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 
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 
letter dated 19.2.2004 to the States and Union Territories enclosing a
SAVELIFE FOUNDATION v. UNION OF INDIA 
fARUN MISHRA, J.] 
Circular issued by the police authorities in Delhi in order to build confidence 
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 
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. 
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 
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. 
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. 
8. While issuing notice on 17.8.2012, this Court has observed: 
"It remains undisputed before us that it is not insufficiency of law 
5 I 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
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 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016] 2 S.C.R. 
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 
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 
this Court. The members of the said Committee are as follows: 
I. 
2. 
Additional Secretary of Ministry of Home Affairs; 
Secretary and or his nominee, Ministry of Health and Family 
Welfare to be nominated in consultation with Directorate 
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; 
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; 
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 
H 
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
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 
until appropriate legislation is made by the Union Legislature. 
D 
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. 
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 
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. 
E 
F 
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 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016] 2 S.C.R. 
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 
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 
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 
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 
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:-
!. (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. 
· 
(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 
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, of the 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 
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 
F 
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 
D 
Government. 
· 
( 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 
fARUN MISHRA, J.] 
"No. RT-25035/101/2014-RS.-Whereas, the Hon'ble Supreme 
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; 
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; 
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 
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, 
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. 
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 
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. 
57 
A 
8 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H
58 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016] 2 S.C.R. 
A 
2. Examination of Good Samaritan by the Police 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
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. 
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. 
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. 
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 
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 
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 
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) 
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 c 
law to this effect. 
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 
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. 
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: 
F 
G 
H
60 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016] 2 S.C.R. 
"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 
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 of India ( 1991) 3 SCC 655, 
Union Carbide Corpn. v. Union of India (1991) 4 SCC 584, 
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 
(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 
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 
Constitution for the enforcement of these fundamental rights 
in the absence of legislation must be viewed along with the 
role of judiciary envisaged in the Beijing Statement of Principles 
of the Independence of the Judiciary in the LAW ASIA region. 
These principles were accepted by the Chief Justices of Asia 
and the Pacific at Beijing in 1995 (*)(As amended at Manila, 
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: 
"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 of the judicial function, 
the observance and the attainment of human rights; and 
(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 
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 
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." 
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 
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 
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. 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H
62 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016] 2 S.C.R. 
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 
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 of jurisdiction 
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;" 
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. 
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 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 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 
'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
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 
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 
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 
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 
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 
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 
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 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
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. 
c 
24. In view of the aforesaid directions, the writ petition stands 
allowed. No order as to costs. 
Nidhi Jain 
Writ petition allov..1cd.