Supreme Court Directs Full Implementation Of AIIMS Advice For Asaram; Allows 24x7 Trained Caretaker

• The Supreme Court directed Rajasthan authorities to fully implement AIIMS Jodhpur's medical recommendations for Asaram.
• Asaram was permitted to have a trained 24x7 caretaker of his choice while remaining in custody.
• The Court adjourned Asaram's medical bail plea but granted liberty to seek urgent listing if his health deteriorates.
• Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the State, assured the Court of compliance with AIIMS recommendations but opposed bail, referencing past alleged activities.
• Asaram's conviction for rape under Section 376 IPC was upheld by the Rajasthan High Court in May 2026, a decision he is appealing in the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court's decision to mandate the full implementation of expert medical advice and permit a 24x7 trained caretaker, even while adjourning the medical bail plea, significantly reinforces the principle of prisoner medical treatment rights in India.

The Supreme Court has issued significant directions regarding the medical care of jailed self-styled godman Asaram, ordering Rajasthan authorities to fully implement the recommendations provided by AIIMS Jodhpur. This directive came as the Court also granted Asaram permission to have a trained caretaker of his choice available round-the-clock while he remains in custody. The bench, comprising Justices M.M. Sundresh and Prasanna B. Varale, made these pronouncements on Thursday, emphasizing that the State was expected to comply with the hospital's advice in its entirety.

These Supreme Court Asaram medical care directions were issued in response to a plea for interim medical bail, which the Court ultimately adjourned. Asaram had recently experienced acute internal bleeding and was admitted to AIIMS Jodhpur, prompting his request for temporary release due to his deteriorating health. While declining to grant immediate medical bail, the Court provided a crucial caveat: Asaram retains the liberty to seek an urgent listing of his plea should his health condition worsen significantly.

During the hearing, the Supreme Court indicated its intention to be guided by the medical report from AIIMS Jodhpur concerning Asaram's treatment and care. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the State, informed the Court that authorities had no objection to Asaram appointing a caretaker of his own choice. He further assured the bench that the Asaram AIIMS Jodhpur recommendations would be implemented "in letter and spirit" by the Rajasthan authorities.

Counsel for Asaram, however, underscored the necessity for the caretaker to be a trained professional, highlighting that the 86-year-old suffers from multiple medical conditions requiring specialized assistance. Addressing concerns about the quality of treatment available within the jail system, the bench recorded the Solicitor General's commitment to the AIIMS recommendations. Despite these assurances, Solicitor General Mehta opposed the medical bail plea, questioning the veracity of Asaram's medical claims. He referenced alleged recent visits by Asaram to Kashi Vishwanath and Ayodhya, contending, "He got the bail on the ground that he was in a vegetative state. But now he is roaming around," implying a prior instance where bail was granted on health grounds.

This latest development follows a previous Supreme Court directive from last month, which instructed the Director of the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) to establish a medical board to thoroughly examine Asaram's health condition. The ongoing legal proceedings are part of a broader appeal process stemming from Asaram's 2013 sexual assault conviction involving a minor girl.

In June, Asaram had approached the Supreme Court to challenge a May 2026 decision by the Rajasthan High Court. The High Court had partially allowed appeals filed by Asaram and his co-accused, setting aside convictions under Section 376D of the Indian Penal Code (gang rape) and certain provisions of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act). However, the High Court upheld Asaram’s conviction for rape under Section 376 IPC. During that earlier Supreme Court hearing, a bench of Justices MM Sundresh and Sheel Nagu had issued notice on Asaram's Special Leave Petition. Senior Advocate DS Naidu, representing Asaram, had argued that his client was 90 years old, faced numerous medical issues, and had been taken to an ayurvedic hospital, stating, "This court is our only hope...there is social media conviction now.." The bench at that time had ordered, "Let the treatment being given to him continue...list after re-opening.."

The Supreme Court's decision to mandate the full implementation of expert medical advice and permit a 24x7 trained caretaker, even while adjourning the medical bail plea, significantly reinforces the principle of prisoner medical treatment rights in India. This ruling underscores the judiciary's commitment to ensuring that inmates, particularly those with serious health conditions like Asaram, receive appropriate and comprehensive care as recommended by medical professionals. By allowing an Asaram 24x7 trained caretaker, the Court acknowledges the need for specialized support beyond standard prison medical facilities.

This approach provides a crucial framework for Rajasthan authorities Asaram health management, ensuring that medical recommendations are not merely acknowledged but actively put into practice. It establishes a precedent that even when a medical bail plea India is not immediately granted, the court can still intervene to guarantee the provision of necessary medical attention, including continuous professional care, thereby upholding the dignity and fundamental rights of individuals in custody.

This ruling reinforces the Supreme Court's commitment to ensuring proper medical care for inmates, even when medical bail is denied. Lawyers can leverage this precedent to advocate for the full implementation of expert medical recommendations and the provision of necessary care, such as trained caretakers, for clients in custody with serious health conditions.

Source: Original reporting via Live Law