Supreme Court Directs Central Government To Frame Cashless "Golden Hour" Treatment Scheme By March 14, 2025

A bench of Justices Abhay S. Oka and Augustine George Masih heard Writ Petition (C) No. 295 of 2012 concerning the absence of a statutory scheme for cashless treatment of victims of motor vehicle accidents during the "golden hour" and the Central Government’s obligation under Section 162 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

The Court held that the Central Government had a statutory duty to frame a scheme for cashless treatment in the golden hour and directed the Government to notify the scheme by 14th March 2025, observing that the statutory provisions and the Motor Vehicle Accident Fund would be ineffective until the scheme was enacted and implemented. The Court reiterated earlier authority that “every injured citizen brought for medical treatment to a hospital should be instantaneously given medical aid to preserve life,” and emphasised the urgency of statutory compliance. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “The provision made in Section 162 for framing a scheme for providing cashless treatment in the golden hour seeks to uphold and protect the right to life guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution. Moreover, it is a statutory obligation of the Central Government to frame the scheme. More than reasonable time was available to the Central Government to frame the scheme under Sub-Section (2) of Section 162 of the MV Act. Once the scheme is framed and its implementation starts, it will save the lives of several injured persons who succumb to injury simply because they do not receive requisite medical treatment during the golden hour. We, therefore, direct the Central Government to make a scheme in terms of Sub-Section (2) of Section 162 of the MV Act as expeditiously as possible and, in any event, by 14th March 2025. No further time shall be granted.”

Background

The petition challenged the delay in framing a scheme under Section 162(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, which defined “golden hour” as the crucial one hour following a traumatic injury during which prompt medical care had the highest likelihood of preventing death. Parliament had inserted Section 162 and Section 164-B (creating a Motor Vehicle Accident Fund) effective 1 April 2022 and framed Central Motor Vehicles (Motor Vehicle Accident Fund) Rules, 2022, but the Central Government had not issued the scheme contemplated by Section 162(2). The Government placed a draft concept note on record in April 2024; the petitioner raised concerns that the note capped payment at Rs.1,50,000 and limited treatment to seven days, which the Court said must be addressed to serve the object of saving lives.

The Court reviewed statutory provisions, the Rules framed under Section 164-B providing for utilisation and disbursement from the Fund, and precedent including Parmanand Katara v. Union of India (1989) that required immediate medical aid. Finding the statutory obligation unfulfilled despite adequate time, the Court directed the Central Government to finalise the scheme by 14 March 2025 and to file a copy on record with an implementation affidavit by 21 March 2025. The matter was listed for consideration on 24 March 2025.

Separately, the Court examined implementation of its earlier directions on hit-and-run compensation. Data placed before the Court showed that between 1 April 2024 and 31 August 2024, 1,662 claimants received compensation but 1,026 claims remained pending. The Court recorded that the General Insurance Corporation (GIC) had agreed to process hit-and-run claims on the basis of seven specified documents (including FIR, post-mortem/injury report, death certificate, bank details, ID proofs and proof of any cashless treatment) and directed GIC to process pending claims, coordinate to clear major documentation deficiencies, and complete a dedicated portal for claims by 14 March 2025, reporting compliance to the Court. The Court directed further listing for monitoring and compliance.

Case Details: Case No.: Writ Petition (C) No. 295 of 2012 (2025 INSC 45) Case Title: S. Rajaseekaran v. Union of India & Ors. Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Not indicated in the order For the Respondent(s): Not indicated in the order