New Delhi, India  
Judiciary

SC Orders Nationwide Implementation Of ICU Guidelines, Sets 9-Month Infrastructure Deadline [Read Order]

By Saket Sourav      25 September, 2026 01:23 PM      0 Comments
Supreme Court Orders Nationwide Implementation Of ICU Guidelines Sets 9Month Infrastructure Deadline

New Delhi: The Supreme Court has issued a mandamus directing the Union of India, all States and Union Territories, and hospitals across the country to comply with the Guidelines for Organization and Delivery of Intensive Care Services within fixed time frames, reducing every proposed 12-month compliance period to 9 months and warning that any laxity or default would invite a strict view from the Court.

Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice R. Mahadevan were hearing Miscellaneous Application No. 1364/2026 in Civil Appeal No. 8402/2016, Asit Baran Mondal & Anr. v. Dr. Rita Sinha & Ors., along with a connected special leave petition, in the course of continuing proceedings concerning the nationwide implementation of Intensive Care Unit standards. Pursuant to the Court's earlier order dated 13.08.2026, a Court-appointed Committee, comprising Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, learned Additional Solicitor General, and Mr. Karan Bharihoke, learned Amicus Curiae, placed before the Bench a detailed proposal titled "Guidelines for Organization and Delivery of Intensive Care Services - Time Frames for Compliance", setting out phased timelines for States and hospitals to align existing ICUs with the Guidelines earlier notified by the Directorate General of Health Services, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, pursuant to the Court's orders dated 18.05.2026 and 20.05.2026.

The Committee's proposal differentiated between categories of compliance: infrastructure changes such as relocation, resizing and nursing stations were assessed as needing up to 12 months given the design and construction involved; procurement of utilities, non-emergency equipment and laboratory services was to be completed within 3 months; emergency equipment, given its sophistication and possible import requirements, was to be procured within 3 months with a further 3 months permissible for installation; infection control and safety measures were to be immediate; and additional services were to be completed within 1 month, while desirable equipment and services, being non-essential by definition, were left without a fixed timeline. On healthcare personnel, the Committee found the 12 to 24 months sought by most States for recruiting ICU specialists, trained doctors, nurses and allied staff to be excessive, while documentation and audit requirements were to be complied with immediately.

Broadly accepting the Committee's recommendations, the Court modified them by substituting every reference to a 12-month period with 9 months, and accordingly issued a mandamus for compliance with the Guidelines for Level I ICUs within the timelines so modified. It further directed that hospitals or institutions claiming to be centres of excellence or speciality institutions, and therefore required to maintain Level III ICU facilities, must simultaneously comply with the requirements for Level III ICUs under the 2026 Guidelines, in addition to the mandatory Level I compliance.

The Court directed the Union of India, the States and the Union Territories to file status reports by 05.11.2026, with a copy to the Committee, which would examine them and place its comments before the Court, with the matter listed next on 16.11.2026. States were permitted to seek relaxation of the timelines for hilly, remote or otherwise difficult areas, supported by particulars of work already undertaken, but the Court cautioned that it would not grant unlimited time or extensions beyond what was reasonably necessary.

On the question of manpower, the Court issued a further mandamus directing the Union, the States, Union Territories and hospitals not under government control to commence the recruitment process for ICU personnel forthwith and complete it within six months, to be strictly complied with by the Governments concerned, particularly the Chief Secretaries and Union Secretaries.

The Court observed: “Any laxity or default noticed by this Court in adherence to the aforesaid Guidelines and the time frames stipulated herein may result in the Court taking a strict view against the defaulting parties.”

Case Title: Asit Baran Mondal & Anr. vs. Dr. Rita Sinha MBBS MS (Obst. Gynae) & Ors., M.A. No. 1364/2026 in C.A. No. 8402/2016, with SLP(C) No. 38704/2025

[Read Order]



Share this article:

About:

Saket is a law graduate from The National Law University and Judicial Academy, Assam. He has a keen ...Read more

Follow:
Linkedin


Leave a feedback about this
Related Posts
View All

Another CBI Officer Investigating Rakesh Asthana Moves SC Against Transfer, Makes Startling Revelations Another CBI Officer Investigating Rakesh Asthana Moves SC Against Transfer, Makes Startling Revelations

After A.K. Bassi, another CBI officer who was investigating corruption allegations against Special Director Rakesh Asthana moved the Supreme Court.

Ayodhya verdict: SC rules in favour of Ram Lalla, Sunni Waqf Board gets alternate land Ayodhya verdict: SC rules in favour of Ram Lalla, Sunni Waqf Board gets alternate land

SC bench led by CJI Ranjan Gogoi has allotted the dispute site to Ram Janmabhoomi Nyas, while directing the government to allot an alternate 5 acre land within Ayodhya to Sunni Waqf Board to build a mosque.

Supreme Court: Money Spent On Judiciary Less Than 1% In All States Except Delhi Supreme Court: Money Spent On Judiciary Less Than 1% In All States Except Delhi

The court guided all states to document their response to the commission's report within four weeks. If any of the states fail to file a response, it will be presumed that they have no objections to the recommendations made by the commission, the court said.

Supreme Court Top Panel Names Chief Justices for Bombay, Orissa and Meghalaya High Courts Supreme Court Top Panel Names Chief Justices for Bombay, Orissa and Meghalaya High Courts

On April 18, 2020, the Supreme Court Collegium recommended new Chief Justices for three High Courts. Justice Dipankar Datta was proposed as Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court, succeeding Justice B.P. Dharmadhikari. Justice Biswanath Somadder was nominated as Chief Justice of Meghalaya High Court, while Justice Mohammad Rafiq was recommended for transfer as Chief Justice of Orissa High Court.

New Release

Senior Citizens Rights Handbook

The Senior Citizen Rights Handbook is a comprehensive guide designed to empower elderly citizens with clear and accessible knowledge of their legal and social rights in India.

Join Group

Signup for Our Newsletter

Get Exclusive access to members only content by email