JUDGMENT

Ranganath Misra, J.

1. The petitioner who claims himself to be a ‘small human right activist and fighting for the good causes for the general public interest' filed this application under Article 32 of the Conititution asking for a direction to the Union of India that every injured citizen brought for treatment should instantaneously be given medical aid to preserve life and thereafter the procedural criminal law should be allowed to operate in order to avoid negligent death and in the event of breach of such direction, apart from any action that may be taken for negligence, appropriate compensation should be admissible. He appended to the writ petition a report entitled ‘Law helps the injured to die’ published in the Hindustan Times. In the said publication it was alleged that a scooterist was knocked down by a speeding car. Seeing the profusely bleeding scooterist, a person who was on the road picked up the injured and took him to the nearest hospital. The doctors refused to attend on the injured and told the man that he should take the patient to a named different hospital located some 20 kilometres away authorised to handle medico legal cases. The samaritan carried the victim, lost no time to approach the other hospital but before he could reach, the victim succumbed to his injuries.

2. The Secretary, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare of the Union of India, the Medical Council of India and the Indian Medical Association were later impleaded as respondents and return to the rule has been made by each of them. On behalf of the Union of India, the Under Secretary in the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare filed an affidavit appending the proceedings of the meeting held on 29-5-1986 in which the Director-General of Health Services acted as Chairman. Along with the affidavit, decisions or papers relating to the steps taken from time to time in matters relating to matters relevant to the application but confined to the Union Territory of Delhi were filed. A report in May, 1983, submitted by the Sub-Committee set up by the Home Department of the Delhi Administration on Medical-Legal Centres and Medico-Legal Services has also been produced. The Secretary of the Medical Council of India in his affidavit referred to clauses 10 and 13 of the Code of Medical Ethics drawn up with the approval of the Central Government under S. 33 of the Act by the Council, wherein it had been said :

"10. Obligations to the sick:

Though a physician is not bound to treat each and everyone asking his services except in emergencies for the sake of humanity and the noble traditions of the profession, he should not only be ever ready to respond to the calls of the sick and the injured, but should be mindful of the high character of his mission and the responsibility he incurs in the discharge of his ministrations, he should never forget that the health and the lives of those entrusted to his care depend on his skill and attention. A physician should endeavour to add to the comfort of the sick by making his visits at the hour indicated to the patients.

13. The patient must not be neglected:

A physician is free to choose whom he will serve. He should, however, respond to any request for his assistance in an emergency or whenever temperate public opinion expects the service. Once having undertaken a case, the physician should not neglect the patient, nor should he withdraw from the case without giving notice to the patient, his relatives or his responsible friends sufficiently long in advance of his withdrawal to allow them to secure another medical attendant. No provisionally or fully registered medical practitioner shall wilfully commit an act of negligence that may deprive his patient or patients from necessary medical care."

The affidavit has further stated:

"The Medical Council of India, therefore, expects that all medical practitioners must attend to sick and injured immediately and it is the duty of the medical practitioners to make immediate and t