Case title:
XXXXX v. State of Haryana
Date of Order:
August 27, 2025
Bench:
Justice Jasgurpreet Singh Puri
Parties:
Petitioner: XXXXX (Accused in cheating, forgery, and rape case);
Respondents: State of Haryana (primary), with notices issued to States of Punjab, Haryana, Union Territory of Chandigarh, Union of India, National Medical Commission (NMC), PGIMER Chandigarh, and Indian Medical Association (IMA) for the suo motu issue.
SUBJECT
The judgment addresses the right to health as encompassed under Article 21 of the Constitution, specifically focusing on the necessity of legible medical prescriptions and diagnoses to ensure patient safety, informed consent and access to healthcare in the digital age.
IMPORTANT PROVISIONS
- Article 21 of the Constitution of India: Protection of life and personal liberty, interpreted to include the right to health and the right to know one's medical prescription, diagnosis, and treatment.
- National Medical Commission (NMC) Regulations/Guidelines: Emphasis on legible prescriptions as per advisories and ethics regulations.
- Protection of Human Rights Act and related health advisories from states like Haryana (May 27, 2025 directive), Punjab (May 28, 2025 directive), and Chandigarh (March 2025 guidelines) mandating capital letters or typed formats.
OVERVIEW
The case originated from an anticipatory bail petition in a criminal matter involving allegations of cheating, forgery, and rape. During proceedings, the court encountered an illegible medico-legal report, prompting suo motu cognizance in 2024. The bench sought responses from Punjab, Haryana, Chandigarh, the Union of India, NMC, PGIMER, and IMA (National Medical Commission, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research (Chandigarh and Indian Medical Association) respectively on the issue of illegible handwriting by doctors. Affidavits revealed existing state directives for capital letters or typed prescriptions. The court expanded the scope to declare legible medical records a fundamental right, issuing comprehensive directives for compliance, digitalization, and curriculum changes.
ISSUES RAISED
- Whether the right to receive a legible medical prescription, diagnosis, and related documents forms an integral part of the right to health under Article 21 of the Constitution.
- The risks associated with illegible handwriting, including medication errors, legal complications, barriers to patient autonomy, and inefficiencies in digital health innovations.
- The need for interim measures like writing in capital letters and long-term solutions like complete digitalization of prescriptions across Punjab, Haryana, and Chandigarh.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE APPELLANT
As the issue was taken up suo motu by the court during an anticipatory bail hearing, there were no specific arguments advanced by the petitioner (appellant in the bail context) on the legible prescription matter. The petitioner's arguments were limited to denying the criminal allegations and seeking bail, citing a consensual relationship and monetary disputes.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE RESPONDENT
The respondents (States of Punjab, Haryana, UT Chandigarh, Union of India, NMC, and PGIMER) submitted affidavits affirming existing measures: Haryana directed capital letters or typed prescriptions on May 27, 2025; Punjab issued similar instructions on May 28, 2025; Chandigarh circulated guidelines in March 2025 to private clinics and IMA branches. PGIMER reported progress on digital software (HIS-II). The Union of India and NMC indicated consideration of nationwide guidelines for minimum standards. The IMA did not appear despite notice. The respondents emphasized compliance with advisories and ongoing efforts toward digitalization, while acknowledging the challenges in implementation.
JUDGEMENT ANALYSIS
The court analyzed the evolution of the right to health under Article 21, citing precedents from Odisha and Uttarakhand High Courts, NMC guidelines, and the role of technology in healthcare. It highlighted how illegible prescriptions create ambiguity, potentially endangering lives, hindering informed consent, and limiting AI/digital health benefits. The bench stressed that in an era of informed citizens and accessible information, unclear handwriting undermines patient rights and efficiency. While appreciating the medical fraternity's dedication, the court prioritized public rights, declaring legible prescriptions indispensable for safeguarding fundamental rights. Directives included mandatory capital letters for handwritten notes, sensitization meetings, policy framing for digitalization within two years (with financial aid), NMC curriculum inclusion, and gazette notification of standards. The judgment balanced interim relief with long-term reforms, listing the matter for compliance monitoring after one year.
CONCLUSION
The court concluded that the right to legible medical prescriptions is a fundamental right under Article 21, essential for patient safety and health equity. It directed strict compliance with state advisories, expedited digitalization, and educational reforms, emphasizing that while doctors serve the nation, public fundamental rights must be protected. The bail plea was disposed of separately, but the suo motu issue was kept alive for monitoring, reinforcing the judiciary's role in advancing healthcare rights.
FAQs
1. Why did the court take up the issue of illegible prescriptions?
A: The issue arose suo motu during an anticipatory bail hearing in 2024 when the court encountered an illegible medico-legal report. This prompted the bench to address broader concerns about patient safety and healthcare rights. Notices were issued to multiple stakeholders for their inputs.
2. What specific directives did the court issue to address illegible prescriptions?
A: Doctors must write prescriptions in capital letters or typed format until digitalization is complete. The court ordered digitalization within two years, inclusion in medical curricula, and gazette notification of standards. Compliance will be monitored after one year.
