2025:BHC-AS:52049-DB IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 35 OF 2024 Medico Legal Society of India ] Association registered with ROS ] Pune vide no. 1319/2022 dated ] 24/08/2022, having registered office ] at 1416, Sadashiv Peth, Pune 411030 ] Maharahtra through its founder ] member Dr. Rajeev Digambar Joshi ] practicing at Shree J. Hospital, Opp ] Chintamani Nagar, Bibwewadi ]

Pune 411046. ] …. Petitioner.

V/s

1. The Secretary, Ministry of Health ] & Family Welfare, Govt. of India ] Nirman Bhavan, New Delhi 110011 ]

]

2. The Union of India ] …. Respondents.

Mr. Rajiv D. Joshi-petitioner in person, present.

None for the respondents.

CORAM : SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR, CJ &

GAUTAM A. ANKHAD, J.

DATE : 17^th NOVEMBER 2025.

PER, SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR, CJ.

This Pubic Interest Litigation seeks to question the ICU admission criteria, particularly, for the critically ill patient who should not be admitted to ICU. Mr. Rajiv D. Joshi, who is the petitioner in- person, states that the guidelines for not admitting critically ill patient to ICU where the patient or next of his kin has expressed his refusal is contrary to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Common Cause v. Union of India” (2023) 14 SCC 131. The petitioner in-person refers to paragraph no.199.1 of the said decision and submits that the guidelines for admission of terminally ill patient are patently illegal and not in public interest.

2. In the first place, we would indicate that in every case where allegation is made that some executive instruction has been made or a guideline has been framed contrary to decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the issue shall not automatically become an issue in public interest. In paragraph no.199.1 of “Common Cause v. Union of India” (2023) 14 SCC 131, the Hon’ble Supreme Court modified the earlier directions as under:-

Directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Modified directions of the Hon’ble Court in “Common Cause v. Union Supreme Court in “Common Cause v.

of India” (2018) 5 SCC 1. Union of India” (2023) 14 SCC 131.

“Para In cases where the patient is In cases where the patient is terminally ill 199.1 terminally ill and undergoing and undergoing prolonged treatment in prolonged treatment in respect of respect of ailment which is incurable or ailment which is incurable or where where there is no hope of being cured, there is no hope of being cured, the the physician may inform the hospital, physician may inform the hospital which, in turn, shall constitute a Primary which, in turn, constitute a Hospital Medical Board in the manner indicated Medical Board in the manner earlier. The Primary Medical Board shall indicated earlier. The Hospital discuss with the family physician, if any, Medical Board shall discuss with and the patient’s next of kin/next the family physician and the family friend/guardian and record the minutes members and record the minutes of of the discussion in writing. During the the discussion in writing. During discussion, the patient’s next of kin/next the discussion, the family members friend/guardian shall be apprised of the shall be apprised of the pros and pros and cons of withdrawal or refusal of cons of withdrawal or refusal of further medical treatment to the patient further medical treatment to the and if they give consent in writing, then patient and if they give consent in the Primary Medical Board may certify writing, then the Hospital Medical the course of action to be taken Board may certify the course of preferably within 48 hours of the case action to be taken. Their discussion being referred to it. Their decision will be will be regarded as a preliminary regarded as a preliminary opinion.”

opinion.

3. A glance at the aforesaid observations by the Hon’ble Supreme Court indicates that after discussions with the family members who are apprised of the pros and cons of the withdrawal or refusal of further medical treatment to the patient and if “they give consent in