Supreme Court Issues Notice to Centre and NMC on Plea Challenging 'Inhumane' Duty Hours for Resident Doctors

Spread the Message

Read Time:4 Minute, 29 Second

On August 22, 2025, the Supreme Court of India issued a notice to the Union Government and the National Medical Commission (NMC) regarding a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by the United Doctors’ Front (UDF). The PIL challenges the excessively long and “inhumane” working hours being imposed on resident doctors across the country, calling for urgent intervention to enforce existing regulations limiting their duty hours.

The plea was filed through advocates Satyam Singh and Neema, urging the court to mandate compliance with the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare’s 1992 directive. This directive limits resident doctors’ working hours to no more than 12 hours per day and 48 hours per week. Despite this clear mandate, many medical institutions continue to violate these standards, leading to chronic overwork, exhaustion, and negative impacts on both doctor well-being and patient safety.

According to Dr. Lakshya Mittal, President of UDF, “Resident doctors routinely work 70-100 hours weekly without adequate rest, leading to chronic stress, physical exhaustion, and deteriorating mental health. This not only endangers the doctors but also compromises patient safety.” The plea cites a National Task Force report documenting over 150 suicides among medical students over five years, linking these tragedies to work-related stress and sleep deprivation.

The petitioners requested that the Supreme Court direct all government and private medical institutions to:

Implement the 1992 duty hour limits strictly
Develop and enforce duty rosters that respect human psychological and physical limits
Establish mechanisms to monitor and ensure compliance with duty hour regulations

Advocate Satyam Singh emphasized the broader human rights issue, stating, “This is not merely about labor rights but about the fundamental right to life with dignity guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.”

Background and Context

This PIL follows earlier Supreme Court observations, such as in the RG Kar Medical College case in 2024, which described the working conditions of resident doctors as “inhumane.” The issue of excessive duty hours for resident doctors in India has persisted for decades despite regulatory frameworks aimed at protecting their health and ensuring safe patient care.

The current action also coincides with ongoing government discussions about revising the Central Residency Scheme introduced in 1992. For the first time in over 30 years, the government is reviewing modifications to limit resident doctors’ working hours to 48 per week, a demand long advocated by medical professionals themselves. Although no final decisions have been announced, the Director General of Health Services, Dr. Atul Goel, has indicated openness to amending rules to explicitly cap work hours.

Survey Findings Underscore Urgency

A recent nationwide survey conducted by the UDF and Medical Dialogues between March 12 and 24, 2025, surveyed 1,031 MBBS interns and postgraduate medical students from all Indian states and union territories. The findings were stark:

86% perceived excessive duty hours as harming their mental health and compromising patient safety
62% reported working more than 72 hours per week, exceeding the legal limits
Over half received no weekly day off

These results reveal a widespread culture of overwork that threatens the physical and mental well-being of India’s future healthcare workforce, as well as the quality of care patients receive.

Public Health Implications

Prolonged duty hours without sufficient rest have well-documented consequences, including:

Increased risk of medical errors and compromised patient safety
Elevated risk of burnout, mental health disorders, and even suicides among doctors
Impaired learning and professional development for medical trainees

Ensuring fair duty hours is critical to sustaining a healthy, effective medical workforce capable of providing high-quality care. The Supreme Court’s active engagement signals recognition of these issues at the highest judicial level, potentially setting a precedent that balances doctors’ labor rights with patient welfare.

Challenges and Counterarguments

Some stakeholders argue that limiting resident doctors’ hours in resource-constrained environments poses logistical challenges for hospitals, potentially affecting service delivery. However, the UDF and supporting advocates stress that humane work conditions are a non-negotiable component of ethical medical practice and constitutional rights.

Moreover, enforcing duty hour regulations can promote long-term sustainability in healthcare systems by reducing doctor attrition, improving mental health, and safeguarding patient safety.

Expert Perspectives

Independent medical ethics expert Dr. Anjali Rao, not involved in the case, commented, “India’s situation reflects a global challenge in balancing healthcare demands with physician well-being. International bodies like the World Health Organization call for strict duty hour limitations to protect both patients and doctors. The Supreme Court’s intervention could drive much-needed reforms.”

Practical Implications for Readers

For healthcare workers and trainees, the case offers hope for improved work conditions and wellbeing. For patients and the public, it underscores the importance of advocating for systemic changes that ensure safe care environments supported by rested, healthy medical professionals.

What happens next?

The Supreme Court is expected to list the case for hearing soon. Its decision could have far-reaching consequences for healthcare policy, resident doctors’ welfare, and patient safety standards in India.

Medical Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and should not be considered medical advice. Always consult with qualified healthcare professionals before making any health-related decisions or changes to your treatment plan. The information presented here is based on current research and expert opinions, which may evolve as new evidence emerges.

References: