Supreme Court Addresses Non-Uniform Cancer Notification Across States
The Supreme Court of India recently heard arguments about the reluctance of certain North Indian states, known for their high tobacco and alcohol consumption, to declare cancer a notifiable disease. This issue was brought to light in the case Anurag Srivastava v. Union of India and Ors. during a hearing on Monday.
A Bench led by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant, along with Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana, considered a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) aimed at standardizing the reporting of cancer cases nationwide. Advocate Gaurav Bansal, representing the petitioner, emphasized the critical need for comprehensive data to aid the National Cancer Registry in planning effective treatment and identifying high-risk areas for increased screening efforts.
“The North Indian States, which have significant tobacco and alcohol usage, are not willing to declare it. Uniform data collection is essential for the National Cancer Registry to strategize treatment and enhance screening,” argued Bansal.
The petition, initiated by former AIIMS doctor Dr. Anurag Srivastava, calls for both the central and state governments to classify cancer as a notifiable disease and to establish a centralized, real-time digital cancer registry. This registry is seen as vital for early detection, effective treatment planning, and optimal resource allocation within the healthcare sector.
This matter reached the Court following a recommendation from the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Health and Family Welfare, which advocated for cancer to be declared notifiable across all states and union territories. The Committee highlighted that systematic reporting would yield real-time data, bolster surveillance, and assist in tailoring region-specific strategies and resource distribution.
In a previous session in August, the Supreme Court urged the 19 states and union territories that had not yet declared cancer as a notifiable disease to reconsider their stance. The Court noted that 17 of the 36 states and union territories had complied and stressed the importance of a uniform policy on mandatory cancer reporting. It directed the remaining states and territories to evaluate the Committee’s suggestions and submit compliance affidavits.
During the hearing, Additional Solicitor General Anil Kaushik informed the Court that the existing reporting portal for cancer cases is operational. “The portal is still existing. It’s working. It’s being reported,” he assured, affirming its effectiveness after CJI Kant’s inquiry about the portal’s status.
The petitioner’s counsel pointed to Punjab’s recent decision in July 2026 to declare cancer a notifiable disease, requiring healthcare institutions to maintain and report cancer records. Despite this progress, many North Indian states have yet to follow suit.
More Read
Additionally, it was noted that the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir had been inadvertently omitted from the proceedings. “Due to oversight, Jammu and Kashmir has not been added as parties,” the counsel acknowledged. CJI Kant responded, “Meanwhile, Union of India may take an appropriate step. Let J&K be added as a party.” The matter was then adjourned for further proceedings.
