Savelife Foundation & Anr V. Union of India & Anr Writ Petition (Civil) No (S) - 235 of 2012

SaveLife Foundation & Anr v.
Union of India & Anr

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO(S). 235 of 2012
NAME: Vaibhav Gupta

COURSE: BBALLB
SEMESTER: 3rd Semester (2nd year)
SUBJECT: Constitutional Governance II
ROLL NO: 180BBALLB019
SUBMITTED TO: Prof. Kanu Priya
 NAME OF THE CASE: Savelife Foundation & Anr v. Union of India &
Anr
 CITATION: WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO(S). 235 of 2012
 FACTS OF THE CASE: SaveLife Foundation is a non-profit NGO

aiming to creating a network of medical responders to come to the victims’
aid. It has been actively in criticizing and improving road safety regulations
in India. SaveLife Foundation filed a PIL on the basis of a national study
conducted by it, which revealed that three out of four people in India hesitate
to come forward to help road accident victims. The study also revealed that
88% of them had hesitated due to fear of legal and procedural hassles. These
include intimidation by police, unnecessary detention at hospitals and
prolonged legal formalities.
This petition was filed in public interest (PIL) under Article 32, before the
Supreme Court. Our Constitution contains a powerful tool by way of the
Article 32 which, among other things, allows the public to directly approach
the SC for orders or directions in cases concerning public interest. This form
of litigation is known as Public Interest Litigation. The petition was filed in
2012 for the development of a supportive legal framework to protect the
Samaritans i.e. by-standers and passers-by who render help to road accident
victims.
 DECISION OF THE CASE: The Supreme Court in this case gave a
landmark ruling on March 4 stating that it would pass an order on the
recommendations of a 3-member committee, chaired by its former Judge
K.S. Radhakrishanan and comprising former Secretary of Road Transport
Ministry S.Sundar and scientist Nishi Mittal, which had demanded
protection for those saving accident victims.
The panel, appointed by the apex court in 2014, made 12 major

recommendations regarding the issue of road safety, including setting up of
State Road Safety Councils, evolving a protocol for the identification and
removal of “blackspots”, monitoring to gauge the effectiveness of the action
taken, and strengthening of enforcement relating to drunken driving, over-
speeding, red light jumping, and helmet and seat belt laws.
The decision of the Supreme Court granting legal teeth to the guidelines
assumes significance because the Centre has always claimed that it has
found it difficult to enforce guidelines in the absence of any statutory
backing. With the court order, the guidelines and standard operating
procedures have become binding in all States and Union Territories.
Hailing the decision of the apex court, Piyush Tewari, the Founder of
SaveLife Foundation said, “This is a big day for India. Until now most states
were treating the guidelines merely as an advisory. But now, non-
compliance will treated as contempt of court, making these guidelines as
reliable as laws. The onus is now on the state governments and union
territories to ensure the implementation of these guideline.”
The guidelines are an interim measure to deal with the issue till the Centre
enacts appropriate legislation. “In order to ensure the effective
implementation of the guidelines and SOPs, it is imperative that a
comprehensive Good Samaritan law is enacted at the Central and the State
level,” the foundation said. Such legislation, it added, would give legal
backing to the guidelines, address the concerns of the Good Samaritans and
protect them from all forms of harassment.
 TIMELINE OF THE DEVELOPMENTS:
 2012: The PIL was filed by SaveLife Foundation.

 29th October, 2014: the Supreme Court directed the Centre to issue
the necessary guidelines with regard to the protection of Good
Samaritans until appropriate legislation was not made by the Union
Legislature.
 May 13, 2015: In a gazette notification, Ministry of Road Transport

and Highways (MoRTH) notified the said guidelines. As per the
guidelines, the disclosure of personal information by a Good
Samaritan who brings an injured person to the hospital was made
voluntary. They also provided that a Good Samaritan would not be
liable for any civil or criminal liability.
 January 22, 2016: MoRTH issued Standard Operating Procedures

(SOPs) for the examination of Good Samaritans by the police or
during trial.
 March 4, 2016: The Supreme Court reserved the judgment making

the guidelines and SOPs binding on all states and union territories of
India.
 March 30, 2016: The Supreme Court approved the guidelines issued
by the Centre.
 NEED FOR GUIDELINES : The WHO in its ‘World Report Traffic Injury
Prevention, 2004’ has projected that by 2020, road accidents will be one
of the biggest killers in India and emphasized 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 a need to build confidence amongst the public to help road

accident victims as 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.” Bystanders support is essential to enhance the chances of
survival of victim in the ‘Golden Hour’ i.e. the first hour of the injury.
Delay in rendering medical help is sometimes fatal.
 THE NEW GUIDELINES: The guidelines lay the following-

 The Good Samaritan will be treated respectfully and without any
discrimination on the grounds of gender, religion, nationality and
caste.
 Any individual, except an eyewitness, who calls the police to inform

them of an accident injury or death need not reveal his or her
personal details such as full name, address or phone number.
 The police will not compel the Good Samaritan to disclose his or her
name, identity, address and other such details in the police records
form or log register.
 The police will not force any Good Samaritan in procuring

information or anything else.
 The police will allow not force any Good Samaritan to leave after
having provided the information available to him or her, and no
further questions will be asked of him or her if he/she does not
desire to be a witness.
Even when Good Samaritans agree to become witnesses, the guidelines accord
them protection and comfort. They ensure that-
 If a Good Samaritan chooses to be a witness, he/she will be

examined with utmost care and respect.
 The examination will be conducted at a time and place of the Good

Samaritan’s convenience and the investigation officer will be
dressed in plain clothes.
 If the Good Samaritan is required by the investigation officer to visit

the police station, the reasons for the requirement shall be recorded
by the officer in writing.
 In a police station, the Good Samaritan will be examined in a single
examination in a reasonable and time-bound manner, without
causing any undue delay.
 If a Good Samaritan declares himself to be an eyewitness, she will

be allowed to give her evidence in the form of an affidavit.
 The concerned Superintendent or Deputy Commissioner of Police is

responsible in ensuring that all the above-mentioned procedures are
implemented throughout their respective jurisdictions.
 CONCLUSION: Given the high mortality, morbidity and overall socio-

economic impact of road crashes in India, issues surrounding road safety
occupy the minds of the general public significantly. 86% of the
respondents believe that the issue of road safety is very important. While
overall, 80% of all road users feel unsafe on Indian roads, 82% of
pedestrians feel unsafe while crossing the road or walking on the road.
Good Samaritan laws point society in a proper direction and act as a

“moral compass”. In other words, human life must be valued at all times
over all things and one must help those whose life is in danger. Most of
the people who are willing to help out in such a situation have various
fears that have been mentioned above. In such circumstances it is the duty
of the State to ensure that adequate protection and rights are given to the
persons willing to help those in need. It is pertinent to note that the bill
enumerates the rights of the Good Samaritan but does not impose any
duties on the bystanders.
Since the accidents and incidents of crime are at a rise in India, there is an
urgent need to enact the legislation that would deal with protection of the
Good Samaritans. The Guidelines issued by the MoRTH along with the
Standard Operating Procedures are only applicable rights to the person
who comes forward to help victims of accidents or incidents of crime.
Since many accidents take place along highways, access to the nearest
medical facility is not always easy. A factor that discourages bystanders
from coming forward to take victims to a hospital is the fear that they
would be made to pay admission costs in a hospital or detained there for
long hours. A year ago, the Union Health Ministry directed the hospitals
that they should not detain those who bring accidents victims for
admission. They should not be requires to pay for admission or
registrations, or asked intrusive questions beyond particulars such as
names and addresses. Though such guidelines and simplified procedures
are welcome, much more needs to be done to encourage people to get
involved in the rescue of accidents victims. So far, only a few State
Governments have adopted the Good Samaritan guidelines. All States
must get actively involved in their implementations. For it is from the
regional domain that those who deal with such situations- the police,
doctors, transport officials and magistrates- are drawn. A good deal of
sensitization is needed, and it may help if state Governments drew up their
own set of rules so that they become committed stakeholders in the cause.

Savelife Foundation & Anr V. Union of India & Anr Writ Petition (Civil) No (S) - 235 of 2012

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Savelife Foundation & Anr V. Union of India & Anr Writ Petition (Civil) No (S) - 235 of 2012

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Savelife Foundation & Anr V. Union of India & Anr Writ Petition (Civil) No (S) - 235 of 2012

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SaveLife Foundation & Anr v.

Union of India & Anr

NAME: Vaibhav Gupta

 CITATION: WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO(S). 235 of 2012

 FACTS OF THE CASE: SaveLife Foundation is a non-profit NGO

The panel, appointed by the apex court in 2014, made 12 major

 2012: The PIL was filed by SaveLife Foundation.

 May 13, 2015: In a gazette notification, Ministry of Road Transport

 January 22, 2016: MoRTH issued Standard Operating Procedures

 March 4, 2016: The Supreme Court reserved the judgment making

There is a need to build confidence amongst the public to help road

 THE NEW GUIDELINES: The guidelines lay the following-

 Any individual, except an eyewitness, who calls the police to inform

 The police will not force any Good Samaritan in procuring

 If a Good Samaritan chooses to be a witness, he/she will be

 The examination will be conducted at a time and place of the Good

 If the Good Samaritan is required by the investigation officer to visit

 If a Good Samaritan declares himself to be an eyewitness, she will

 The concerned Superintendent or Deputy Commissioner of Police is

 CONCLUSION: Given the high mortality, morbidity and overall socio-

Good Samaritan laws point society in a proper direction and act as a

You might also like

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.