Justice V.G. Arun says absence of protocol affects doctors’ right to fair trial; Amicus Curiae appointed, next hearing on July 14
Ernakulam: The Kerala High Court has raised serious concern over the lack of standardized guidelines for expert committees that evaluate medical negligence cases. The court observed that in the absence of such procedures, doctors facing prosecution may be deprived of a fair trial and a chance to defend themselves.
The bench, led by Justice V.G. Arun, was hearing a plea filed by a doctor booked under Section 304A of the IPC, in connection with the death of a patient allegedly due to medical negligence. During the proceedings, the Additional Director General of Police (ADGP) admitted that there are currently no formal protocols in place to guide the functioning of these expert panels.
Taking note of this, the Court remarked:
“Absence of such guidelines will adversely affect the right to fair trial of the accused like the petitioners herein. It is fundamental for the Committee to consider the explanation of the doctor before submitting its report and to provide a copy of the report for enabling an appeal.”
The doctor had contended that he was neither heard by the Expert Committee nor provided a copy of its report. On April 9, the High Court had granted an interim stay on proceedings in C.C. No. 52 of 2025 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kunnamkulam. The Court has now extended that stay in a connected matter, C.C. No. 2316 of 2017 before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Adoor, until the next hearing.
Recognizing the need for systemic reform, the Court appointed Advocate Akash S. as Amicus Curiae to assist in framing the necessary guidelines. It also directed both the petitioner’s counsel and the ADGP to submit their suggestions before the next hearing scheduled for July 14, 2025.
The case stems from Supreme Court directions in Jacob Mathew vs. State of Punjab, which mandated expert committee evaluation before proceeding in medical negligence cases. However, the High Court noted that without procedural clarity, such committees risk functioning arbitrarily.
