NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Tuesday asked the 19 States and Union Territories that have not yet done so to consider declaring cancer a “notifiable disease”, seeking greater uniformity in reporting that can aid early detection and improve patient care.
A three-judge Bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and comprising Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana also questioned the Centre on why it had not issued mandatory guidelines for all States and UTs, stressing the need for a uniform policy on cancer reporting. The Court directed the remaining States and UTs to consider the recommendations before it and file compliance affidavits.
The direction came after the Court was informed that 17 of the country’s 36 States and UTs had already notified cancer as a notifiable disease, following recommendations of a parliamentary standing committee.
Additional Solicitor General Anil Kaushik, appearing for the Centre, told the Bench that health was a State subject and pointed out that 17 States had already notified the disease.
The proceedings stem from a public interest litigation filed by doctor Anurag Srivastava, former head of the Department of Surgical Disciplines at the All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi. The Court had on December 12 last year sought responses from the Centre and all States and UTs on the plea seeking nationwide notification of cancer.
The petition has sought mandatory reporting of cancer cases across India, arguing that the absence of a uniform notification system has resulted in fragmented data, inadequate surveillance and inconsistencies in early detection.
The plea has also sought the creation of a centralised, real-time digital cancer registry integrated with the National Cancer Registry Programme, hospital databases, State insurance schemes and mortality records. It has further sought nationwide cancer screening.
According to the petition, the existing National Cancer Registry Programme, operated by the Indian Council of Medical Research, covers about 10 per cent of the country’s population, while rural coverage is around 1 per cent.
The petitioner has argued that the lack of uniform notification contributes to disparities in cancer surveillance and can result in delayed diagnosis, increased treatment costs and poorer patient outcomes. It has contended that patients are often diagnosed at advanced stages, when curative treatment becomes more difficult, expensive or, in some cases, impossible.
The plea has also raised concerns over unverified claims surrounding alternative cancer treatments and urged the government to clearly distinguish evidence-based therapies from untested claims. It has specifically referred to claims regarding cow urine as a cancer treatment and cited an RTI response which, according to the petition, found no scientific research establishing it as an effective cancer therapy.
The petitioner has argued that the Centre and States have overlapping powers in relation to disease notification despite public health being primarily a State subject, and that the resulting variation in State policies has created gaps in cancer surveillance.
The PIL has urged the Court to direct coordinated and legally enforceable measures to strengthen the national response to cancer, including a unified reporting mechanism and nationwide screening.
The Supreme Court’s latest direction places the focus on the 19 States and UTs that have yet to notify cancer, with compliance affidavits now required from them.
