News
Rights petition to protect good Samaritans at accidents
View(s):The Foundation for Civilian Bravery, established by Parliament Act No. 4 of 2009, demands guidelines, similar to those in India, to be issued for the care of rescuers and care-givers. The guidelines are to be applicable to institutions such as the police, hospitals and other relevant authorities.
Since its inception in 1993, the Foundation functions to recognise and reward the bravery of those who commit themselves to protect others “at the risk of one’s own life”.
Kasun P. Chandraratne, the founder and current President of the Foundation who filed the petition on behalf of the organisation, argues that, often, good Samaritans who attend to a victim of a road accident face great inconvenience or even harassment as a consequence of the action in saving a victim’s life.
The petitioner pointed out that lives are sometimes lost in road accidents because members of the public shy away from attending to a victim for fear of being caught up in litigation and having to undergo interrogation at a police station and attend court on numerous days.
Indicating a reliable study that records at least 319 deaths resulting from citizens neglecting to attend to victims fatally wounded at road accidents, Mr. Chandraratne demands guidelines to avoid such deaths in future. The victims recorded in the study had died as a result of people denying them medical treatment or not giving them timely attention.
To support his argument, the petitioner pointed out how in India, as a consequence of public interest in regard to victims of road accidents, guidelines were published as directed by that country’s Supreme Court.
In May 2014, under the directive of the Indian Supreme Court, the Ministry of Board Transport and Highways of India issued a set of 15 guidelines to protect volunteers/good Samaritans from harassment on account of actions taken by them to save the lives of accident victims.
The regulations, which specifically recognise that the bystander or good Samaritan should not be liable for any civil and criminal liability, also notes such persons should be suitably rewarded or compensated to encourage other citizens to come forward to help road victims.
“Whenever a bystander or volunteer makes a phone call to inform the police or emergency services for the person lying injured on the road, he shall not be compelled to reveal his name and personal details over the phone or in person,” one of the provisions of the Indian regulations reads.
Mr. Chandraratne is of the view that such acts constitute “administrative acts” enshrined in Article 12(1) of the Constitution and as such the Article is at risk of infringement if the State does not take appropriate regulatory steps to protect a process that would prevent deaths of members of the public.
Respondents named in the Foundation for Civilian Bravery’s petition are the Inspector-General of Police (IGP), to whom fatal road accidents are reported, the Secretary of the Ministry of Health, which is in charge of hospitals to which road accident victims are admitted for treatment, and the Secretaries of the ministries of Law and Order, Higher Education and the Attorney-General’s Department.
The petitioner seeks the Supreme Court’s directive to issue notice on the respondents and grant leave to proceed in the first instance. Similar to the way in which the Indian Supreme Court directed the relevant agencies to submit guidelines, the petitioner seeks the court to direct the respondents to publish guidelines in the Public Gazette until legislation is enacted.