Case Details

  • Case Name: SaveLife Foundation and another vs Union of India and others (Writ Petition (Civil) No. 726 of 2024)
  • Court/Authority: Supreme Court of India, Civil Original Jurisdiction
  • Order Date: May 26, 2026
  • Petition Filed Under: Article 32 of the Constitution of India
  • Period of Dispute: Not specified; petition addresses ongoing deficiencies in emergency trauma care and road‑safety infrastructure.

Parties Involved

  • Petitioners: SaveLife Foundation (social impact organization) and a public‑spirited individual who is Founder and Managing Trustee of SaveLife Foundation.
  • Respondents: Union of India and State Governments/Union Territories (Respondents No. 2‑37).
  • Legal Representatives: Attorney General of India (Mr. R. Venkataramani) for the Union; Senior Advocate Mr. Sidharth Luthra and Advocate Ms. Malvika Kapila for the petitioners.
  • Presiding Judges: J. K. Maheshwari and Atul S. Chandurkar.

Issues / Allegations / Violations

  • Fragmented and non‑integrated emergency helpline numbers (100, 101, 108, 102, 1033, 1091) causing delays in trauma response.
  • Absence of a uniform Good Samaritan grievance redressal mechanism.
  • No standardized medical rescue protocol for road‑crash victims.
  • Non‑compliance with the National Ambulance Code, lack of GPS/vehicle‑location tracking in ambulances.
  • No nationally adopted curriculum for paramedics/EMTs.
  • No comprehensive Trauma Registry and no systematic grading of medical facilities.
  • Incomplete implementation of cashless treatment scheme for road‑accident victims (PM RAHAT).
  • Insufficient public awareness of the universal emergency number 112, Good Samaritan protections, and cashless schemes.
  • Legal contention that health, ambulance services, police, and public order fall under State List, limiting Union’s direct action.

Findings & Observations

  • The Court notes a “staggering increase” in road accidents and consequent fatalities, attributing many deaths to delayed emergency care.
  • Prior judgment (Savelife Foundation v. Union of India) recognized Good Samaritan protections under Section 134A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
  • The Attorney General’s compliance affidavit (dated 12‑05‑2026) shows willingness of 34 States/UTs but highlights fragmented and uneven implementation of Union policies.
  • The Court affirms that the Union can act as an enabler by framing national frameworks, while States/UTs are responsible for on‑ground execution.

Penalties / Settlements / Directions

The Court issues the following interim directions (all to be complied with within the stipulated time‑frames):

  • a) Integrate all emergency/ambulance helplines (100, 101, 108, 102, 1033, 1091, etc.) into the universal number 112 within three months; conduct mass‑media publicity; submit compliance reports.
  • b) Establish functional (physical and digital) Good Samaritan Grievance Redressal Systems with designated nodal authorities at State and District levels within three months; hold monthly meetings, upload minutes on portals, and report periodically.
  • c) Union (Ministry of Health & Family Welfare / Ministry of Road Transport & Highways) to issue a comprehensive medical rescue protocol for trauma cases within three months; States/UTs to operationalize the protocol within three months of issuance.
  • d) Ensure full AIS‑125 compliance for all registered ambulances (public and private); mandate GPS/Vehicle Location Tracking Device fitment and real‑time integration with helpline 112; conduct structured audits (response times, quality of care, equipment, outcomes) and report to a designated Union‑level authority within three months.
  • e) Adopt and implement the EMT curriculum notified by the National Commission for Allied and Healthcare Professionals (NCAHP) across all States/UTs within three months.
  • f) Union to issue guidelines prescribing data format for a Trauma Registry within eight weeks; States/UTs to establish State Trauma Registries and link them to a Coordinated Trauma Registry covering all medical facilities within four months.
  • g) Grade and designate all medical facilities (public and private) per Ministry of Health & Family Welfare guidelines, extending beyond National Highways to State Highways, Major District Roads, and urban/peri‑urban areas; compliance to be reported within three months.
  • h) Operationalize the PM RAHAT cashless treatment scheme (already framed by the Union) across all States/UTs within eight weeks; steps include hospital designation, onboarding State Health Agency on Transaction Management System, district‑police deployment on electronic Detailed Accident Report (eDAR), and opening of DC sub‑agency accounts within three months. Non‑implementation will constitute a violation of the Motor Vehicles Act.
  • i) Conduct sustained, structured, multilingual mass‑media campaigns covering helpline 112, Good Samaritan protections under Section 134A, the grievance redressal system, and the cashless treatment scheme (PM RAHAT) with defined obligations and compliance reporting within one month.
  • Additional Direction (13): States/UTs that have not yet adopted the Cashless Treatment of Road Accident Victims Scheme, 2025 – PM RAHAT – must fully operationalize it within three months.

Corrective Actions & Future Obligations

  • States/UTs must submit periodic compliance reports to the Court registry, including action‑taken reports and ground‑reality assessments.
  • The Union must finalize and disseminate the medical rescue protocol, trauma registry data format, and EMT curriculum guidelines within the prescribed timelines.
  • A retired judge of the Supreme Court is appointed to oversee periodic compliance and ensure implementation of all directions.
  • The matter is listed for review after four months; the Attorney General must present structured recommendations based on the States’ reports for further Court consideration.

Final Ruling & Enforcement

  • The Supreme Court issues the above interim directions as binding orders, appoints oversight, and mandates reporting mechanisms.
  • Non‑compliance will be treated as a violation of the Motor Vehicles Act and may attract further judicial intervention.
  • Further directions will be issued after the four‑month review based on the compliance reports submitted by the States/UTs.