Page 1

1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION (C) NO.235 OF 2012

Savelife Foundation & Anr. … Petitioners

Vs.

Union of India & Anr. … Respondents

JUDGM ENT

ARUN MISHRA,  J.

1. 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 can play a significant role in order to save  

lives  of  the  victims  by either  immediately  rushing  them to  the  hospital  or  

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 has also drafted recommendations to  

address  the  critical  deficiencies  in  the  Motor  Vehicles  Act,  and other  laws  

governing road safety.

Page 2

2

3. The Department  of  Road  Transport  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  

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 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

Page 3

3

society or any of its 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 51D of the  Civil  Law (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 Samaritan Act 2001, by  

Section 2 (1), 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

Page 4

4

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 Article 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. In 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  

country, while organizing of trauma care apart of intervention is also required,  

there is another factor, namely, relative ignorance 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  

number of the accident victims can be saved if they receive immediate medical  

attention.”  The letter also admits that due to fear of harassment people do not

Page 5

5

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 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

Page 6

6

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 of legislation 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 but it is implementation of law  which is a matter of concern.  Different guidelines  including guidelines for ambulance Code, emergency  care and appropriate directions to the hospitals on the  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.

Learned counsel for the parties even propose to  make joint suggestions in this regard after consulting  the  relevant  Ministries  and  NHA.   The  counsel  appearing for  the 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:

1. Additional Secretary of Ministry of Home Affairs;

Page 7

7

2. 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 AIIMS 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;  

“(ix)  Identify  the  root  causes  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  of  harassment  and  legal  hassles  in  general  public  regarding  helping injured victims.  These guidelines will also serve as 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 of India.  This Court observed in  

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

Page 8

8

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 affidavit  

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.

   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 the guidelines.

   On 27.11.2015, this Court was informed 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 of a notification or regulations or guidelines.

Page 9

9

11. The  Ministry  of  Road  Transport  and  Highways  has  issued  a  

notification containing guidelines on 12.5.2015 published in the Gazette  

of  India  para 1  of  Section  1 of  the  Notification  dated  12.5.2015 for  

protection of good Samaritans and a further Notification has been issued  

on 21.1.2016 in accordance with para 1(7) and 1(8) of the guidelines  

dated  12.5.2015  which  required  standard  operating  procedures  to  be  

framed and issued for examination of good Samaritans by the police or  

during trial.  It has been mentioned in the affidavit filed by Ministry of  

Road Transport and Highways, Government of India that in the absence  

of any statutory backing, it is felt that it will be difficult to enforce these  

guidelines  issued  on  12.5.2015  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  134  of  the  

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.   

   Notification  dated  12.5.2015  issued  by  the  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.25035/101/2014-RS.—Whereas  the  Hon'ble  Supreme Court  in  the  case  of  Savelife  Foundation  and another V/s. Union Of India and another in Writ

Page 10

10

Petition (Civil) No. 235 of 2012 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 them to  save  the  life  of  the  road  accident  victims  and,  therefore, the Central Government hereby issues the  following  guidelines  to  be  followed  by  hospitals,  police and all other authorities for the protection of  Good Samaritans, namely:-  1. (1)  A bystander or  good Samaritan including an  eyewitness of  a road accident  may take an injured  person to the nearest hospital, and the bystander or  good  Samaritan  should  be  allowed  to  leave  immediately except  after  furnishing 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 compensated 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.  (4)  A bystander  or  good  Samaritan,  who  makes  a  phone call to 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  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.

Page 11

11

(7) In case a bystander or good Samaritan, who has  voluntarily stated that he is also an eye-witness to the  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  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 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 payment  for  registration  and  admission  costs,  unless  the  good  Samaritan  is  a  family  member  or  relative  of  the  injured  and  the  injured is to be treated immediately in pursuance of  the  order  of  the  Hon’ble  Supreme  Court  in  Pt.  Parmanand Katara vs Union of India & Ors [1989] 4  SCC 286.  (11) Lack of response by a doctor in an emergency  situation  pertaining  to  road  accidents,  where  he  is  expected  to  provide  care,  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 vernacular language of the State or  Union territory at their entrance to the effect that they  shall not detain bystander or good Samaritan or ask

Page 12

12

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,  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.  (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.  (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  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 134 of the  Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988).    

                                               Sd/- Jt. Secy.”  

12.     Para 1(7) and 1(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  

and Highways has issued notification on 21.1.2016 which is as under:

“No.  RT-25035/101/2014-RS.—Whereas,  the

Page 13

13

Hon'ble  Supreme  Court  in  the  case  of  Save  Life  Foundation  and  another  Vs  Union  of  India  and  another in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 235/2012 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 of India, 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 injured person  or a person in distress on the road;  And whereas, as per para 1 (7) and (8) of the said  guidelines dated 12th May, 2015, Standard Operating  Procedures are to be framed for the 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.  1.  The  Good  Samaritan  shall  be  treated  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, shall  not compel the Good Samaritan to disclose his / her  name, identity, address and other such details in the  Record Form 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 Samaritan to leave after having informed the  Police about an injured person on the road, and no

Page 14

14

further  questions  shall  be  asked  if  the  Good  Samaritan  does  not  desire  to  be  a  witness  in  the  matter.  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.  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  of  residence  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  an  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  Evidence  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

Page 15

15

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 (2 of 1974) on an  application by the concerned.  3.  The  Superintendent  of  Police  or  Deputy  Commissioner of Police or any other Police official  of corresponding seniority heading the Police force  of a 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.” 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.

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 of adoption, this Court has  

laid down certain principles and norms to be followed in the 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  W.B.  (1997)  1  SCC  416,  this  Court  

considering the fact that the custodial violence, torture, rape, death in

Page 16

16

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  

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. In  Vishaka and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (1997) 6 SCC  

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 the purpose.  

16. In Vineet Narain & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr. (1998) 1 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 :

“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,  

Page 17

17

Foreign Adoption), guidelines for adoption of minor  children by foreigners were laid down. Similarly in  State of W.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,  Delhi  Judicial  Service  Assn. v.  State  of   Gujarat (1991)  4  SCC  406  (Nadiad  case),  Delhi   Development Authority v.  Skipper Construction Co.   (P) Ltd. (1996) 4 SCC 622 and Dinesh Trivedi, M.P.  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  (IInd  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  LAWASIA  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 observed in order to maintain  the independence and effective functioning of  the judiciary.  The objectives  of  the  judiciary  mentioned in the Beijing Statement are:

             “Objectives of the Judiciary:         10. The objectives and functions of the  Judiciary include the following:

(a) to ensure that all persons are able to

Page 18

18

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  Union of India v. Association for Democratic Reforms & Anr.  

(2002)  5  SCC  294,  the  decisions  in  Vineet  Narain (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-settled practice which has taken firm roots in  

our  constitutional  jurisprudence.  Similar  is  the  decision  in  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, 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

Page 19

19

14 of the Constitution would be the ultimate test of  all  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. 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  1,  (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, merely on the strength of the provisions of  the said Part of the Constitution, if the 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  and  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 constitutional 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 of rights under Article 21 read with Article 14

Page 20

20

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 of India 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  

of occurrence and confirming that the injured person was brought by the  

said Samaritan.  

         We have also gone through the notification dated 21.1.2016 with  

respect to the examination of Good Samaritan by the Police as contained  

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 investigation. In case statement  is  to  be  recorded,  complete  statement  shall  be  recorded in a single examination.”

Page 21

21

Remaining  guidelines  in  the  notifications  dated  12.5.2015  and  

21.1.2016 are approved and it is ordered 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 of India  

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 in section 284 of the Code of  

Criminal Procedure, 1973 suo motu 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  

of  Orissa.  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

Page 22

22

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 for the efforts made in formulating  

guidelines  by  all  concerned,  the  members  of  Committee,  concerned  

Department,  learned  Solicitor  General  and  positive  attitude  of  the  

counsel 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 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.                         

…………………………….J. (V. Gopala Gowda)

New Delhi; …………………………..J. March 30, 2016. (Arun Mishra)