New Delhi: In a blistering critique, the Supreme Court of India lambasted the Union government for its failure to implement a cashless treatment scheme for road accident victims during the critical “golden hour,” a one-hour window post-injury where timely medical intervention can be life-saving. Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan, presiding over the case, expressed profound frustration at the government’s inaction, accusing it of disregarding both statutory obligations and the sanctity of human lives. The court warned of contempt action against the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways (MoRTH) and demanded immediate action to address the delay, which has left countless accident victims without critical care.
A Stark Contrast: Highways vs. Human Lives
The Supreme Court’s sharp rebuke came during a hearing addressing the government’s non-compliance with its January 8, 2025, directive, which mandated the Centre to formulate a cashless treatment scheme for motor accident victims by March 14, 2025. This scheme, required under Section 162(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, aims to ensure prompt medical care during the golden hour, defined under Section 2(12-A) as the one-hour period following a traumatic injury where medical intervention is most likely to prevent death.
“You are constructing huge highways, but people are dying there because there is no facility,” Justice Oka remarked, highlighting the grim irony of India’s extensive highway infrastructure lacking basic life-saving mechanisms. “Can you be so casual? Are you not serious about this provision? People are dying in road accidents. There is no scheme for golden hour treatment. What is the use of constructing so many highways?” the bench questioned the MoRTH secretary, who appeared via video conferencing to explain the delay.
The court’s ire was fueled by the government’s failure to act on a provision that has been in force since April 1, 2022. Section 162(2) mandates a scheme to provide cashless treatment, aligning with the constitutional right to life under Article 21. Despite the Supreme Court’s clear directive, the Centre neither complied nor sought an extension, prompting the bench to summon the MoRTH secretary for an explanation.
Contempt Warning and a Government Apology
The bench did not hold back, accusing the government of contempt for flouting its January 8 order. “Firstly, remember you are in contempt. We will issue contempt notice to you first. What is this going on? Are you not supposed to come to the court when you can’t comply with an order?” Justice Oka demanded. The court further criticized the government’s cavalier attitude, stating, “You don’t care for your own statutes… Three years after, you are saying you hit roadblocks etc. You have done nothing. Why did you enact this provision?”
In response, the MoRTH secretary offered an unconditional apology for the “inordinate delay” in implementing the court’s order. He assured the bench that the golden hour treatment scheme, as mandated by Section 162(2), would be rolled out within one week from April 28, 2025. The court recorded this commitment, ordering the Centre to submit the notified scheme by May 9, 2025, and scheduled the next hearing for May 13, 2025.
The secretary attributed the delay to objections from the General Insurance Council (GIC), which had insisted on verifying the insurance status of vehicles involved in accidents before releasing funds. The government, however, argued that the State Health Agency (SHA) was better equipped to manage payments. Justice Oka dismissed these justifications, stating, “You have to start somewhere, you can go on improving the scheme.” He suggested that if the GIC was uncooperative, another agency could be appointed to oversee the scheme’s implementation.
GIC’s Objections and the Court’s Firm Stance
The GIC’s role installing the scheme drew significant scrutiny during the hearing. The council had filed an application raising concerns about integration with the Transport Network System (TNS), prompting a stern response from the bench. “It is none of your business to submit this application. If the Central government has designed a scheme, they will implement it. Are you withdrawing this application, or should we impose costs?” the court warned. The GIC counsel quickly sought permission to withdraw the application, which the bench allowed.
The court made it clear that the GIC’s objections could not justify delaying a scheme critical to saving lives. “You will keep on making objections, and people will keep dying due to lack of golden hour treatment. The scheme has to be framed. How it will work, time will tell us,” Justice Oka emphasized. The bench also noted that 921 claims under the hit-and-run compensation scheme were pending as of July 31, 2024, due to document deficiencies. It directed the GIC to coordinate with claimants to resolve these issues promptly.
Failure to Implement Section 164A
Beyond the golden hour scheme, the Supreme Court addressed the government’s failure to implement Section 164A of the Motor Vehicles Act, which provides for interim relief to claimants. This provision, also effective since April 1, 2022, for a three-year period, has remained unimplemented due to the absence of a framed scheme. The court described this lapse as “deplorable,” stating, “Such an important provision has remained unimplemented for the last three years. This failure has to be deprecated.”
The bench ordered the Centre to frame the scheme under Section 164A as expeditiously as possible, setting a deadline of four months from April 28, 2025. “You don’t care for your own statutes. We have completed three years of the section, still you are struggling to make a scheme. Are you acting for the welfare of the common man?” the court questioned, challenging the government’s commitment to public welfare.
The Case’s Origins and Broader Implications
The case stems from a writ petition filed by Dr. S. Rajaseekaran, who highlighted the alarming number of road accident deaths in India and sought effective implementation of statutory mechanisms to save lives during the golden hour. On January 8, 2025, the Supreme Court had emphasized that a well-implemented scheme could prevent numerous fatalities caused by delays in medical treatment due to financial or procedural hurdles.
The court’s April 9, 2025, hearing had already flagged the government’s inaction as a “very serious breach and violation” of statutory and constitutional obligations. The latest hearing underscored the urgency of the issue, with the bench warning that it would exercise its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to enforce the scheme if necessary. The court also indicated its readiness to proceed under the Contempt of Courts Act if compliance remained elusive.
Challenges and Proposed Solutions
Additional Solicitor General Vikramjit Banerjee, representing the Centre, explained that MoRTH was working to address challenges critical to the scheme’s smooth rollout. He noted that the GIC’s insistence on controlling payments and verifying insurance policies had created roadblocks. The government, however, favored empowering the SHA to handle payments directly to hospitals.
Amicus Curiae Senior Advocate Gaurav Agrawal offered a practical solution, suggesting that the SHA be authorized to release payments to hospitals to streamline the process. He highlighted that budgetary provisions had been made for uninsured and hit-and-run vehicles, and the existing insurance system could cover insured vehicles. “Now there is some hitch about who is the deciding authority to release the payment to the hospital. So this can be resolved by simply saying that the SHA will do this,” Agrawal proposed.
Justice Oka agreed, noting that the scheme could be implemented if funds were available. When the secretary confirmed that the scheme had been approved and only legal vetting was pending, the court pressed for immediate notification. “For the last two years, what have you been doing? What is the use of such beneficial provision? How many people have died because they could not get the treatment?” Justice Oka asked, underscoring the human cost of the delay.
A Call for Accountability and Action
The Supreme Court’s unrelenting stance reflects its commitment to upholding the right to life and ensuring that statutory provisions serve the common man. The government’s apology and promise to implement the scheme within a week mark a step forward, but the court’s warnings of contempt action signal that it will tolerate no further delays.
As India continues to expand its highway network, the absence of a robust system for golden hour treatment remains a glaring gap. The Supreme Court’s intervention seeks to bridge this gap, ensuring that accident victims receive timely care without financial or procedural barriers. With the matter set for review on May 13, 2025, all eyes are on the Centre to deliver on its promise and uphold its constitutional and statutory obligations.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)
1. What is the “golden hour” in the context of road accident victims?
The “golden hour” refers to the critical one-hour period following a traumatic injury, such as those sustained in a road accident, during which timely medical intervention is most likely to prevent death. It is defined under Section 2(12-A) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and is central to the cashless treatment scheme mandated by the Supreme Court.
2. Why did the Supreme Court criticize the Union government?
The Supreme Court criticized the Union government for failing to implement a cashless treatment scheme for road accident victims during the golden hour, as mandated by Section 162(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Despite the court’s January 8, 2025, directive to formulate the scheme by March 14, 2025, the government neither complied nor sought an extension, prompting accusations of contempt and neglect of public welfare.
3. What role did the General Insurance Council (GIC) play in the delay?
The GIC caused delays by raising objections to the scheme, including demands to verify the insurance status of vehicles involved in accidents before releasing funds. The Supreme Court criticized the GIC for creating roadblocks and warned it against interfering with the government’s implementation process, ultimately leading the GIC to withdraw its objections.
4. What is Section 164A of the Motor Vehicles Act, and why was it mentioned?
Section 164A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, provides for a scheme to grant interim relief to claimants in road accident cases. The Supreme Court noted that, like the golden hour scheme, this provision, effective since April 1, 2022, has not been implemented. The court ordered the government to frame this scheme within four months from April 28, 2025, calling the delay “deplorable.”
5. What are the next steps in the implementation of the cashless treatment scheme?
The MoRTH secretary assured the Supreme Court that the cashless treatment scheme would be implemented within one week from April 28, 2025. The court directed the Centre to submit the notified scheme by May 9, 2025, with the matter scheduled for review on May 13, 2025. Failure to comply could result in contempt action.
