Cancer reporting in India has come into focus again as Haryana has told the Supreme Court that it already has a mandatory system for reporting cancer cases and does not require a separate declaration of cancer as a “notifiable disease.” The submission comes ahead of a Supreme Court hearing on a public interest litigation seeking uniform and mandatory cancer reporting across the country.
The issue is important because reliable cancer data helps governments understand where cases are being diagnosed, plan healthcare services, strengthen screening and track the disease burden. India already has cancer registries operated through the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR), but reporting requirements differ between states.
Here are five key facts about the ongoing debate over cancer reporting in India and what it could mean for public health.
1. Why Cancer Reporting in India Is Back in Focus
The Supreme Court is considering a public interest litigation seeking a more uniform system for reporting cancer cases across India.
On August 11, 2026, the Supreme Court asked the remaining States and Union Territories to consider recommendations to declare cancer a notifiable disease and take appropriate decisions. The court said compliance affidavits should be filed after considering the recommendations.
The matter followed a petition filed by Dr Anurag Srivastava, a former AIIMS surgeon and researcher, who sought mandatory cancer notification across India. The petition argues that a common reporting framework could improve cancer surveillance and help authorities identify cases more systematically. These are claims made in the petition and are being considered in the ongoing legal proceedings.
The debate is not simply about collecting more numbers. Cancer data can influence how governments plan screening programmes, diagnostic facilities, specialist services and other healthcare resources.
2. What Does “Notifiable Disease” Mean?
A notifiable disease is a disease or health condition that must be reported to designated public-health authorities under the applicable rules.
Such reporting allows authorities to collect information from healthcare facilities and monitor the occurrence of specified diseases. The exact reporting requirements, responsible institutions and deadlines can vary according to the legal framework used by a state.
Cancer is different from diseases such as infectious outbreaks because it is a non-communicable disease. Haryana has specifically argued that cancer does not spread from one person to another and therefore does not fit the traditional purpose associated with notification of communicable diseases.
The Supreme Court proceedings, however, are examining whether a reporting framework for cancer could serve a different public-health purpose: creating more systematic information for surveillance, planning and early intervention.
That distinction is central to the current debate.
3. Haryana Already Has Mandatory Cancer Reporting
Haryana has told the Supreme Court that it does not need a separate notification because the state already has a mandatory cancer-reporting mechanism.
According to the state’s compliance affidavit, Haryana has had such a system since 2014. A notification issued on October 29, 2014 requires hospitals, private and government institutions, diagnostic centres, laboratories and other health facilities treating cancer patients to report diagnosed cases to the head of the pathology department at PGIMS, Rohtak.
The state said the prescribed report is required within one week of diagnosis. The notification also includes provisions concerning confidentiality and protection of patients’ identities.
Haryana has also reported that hospital-based cancer registries are functioning at several institutions, including the Atal Cancer Care Centre at Civil Hospital in Ambala Cantonment, PGIMS Rohtak, the National Cancer Institute in Jhajjar, Bhagat Phool Singh Government Medical College in Khanpur Kalan and ESIC Medical College and Hospital in Faridabad.
The state has therefore argued that its existing system already provides compulsory and time-bound reporting.
The state’s position does not settle the wider national question. The Supreme Court’s August direction covers the remaining States and Union Territories, each of which may have different systems and reporting arrangements.
4. India Already Collects Cancer Data Through Registries
India does not lack cancer data collection altogether.
The ICMR’s National Cancer Registry Programme (NCRP) was created to generate information on the magnitude and patterns of cancer in the country. ICMR says it has established more than 250 registries under the programme.
The cancer registry system includes population-based and hospital-based registries. ICMR’s National Health Research Data Repository explains that population-based cancer registries collect information on new cancer cases and cancer mortality within defined populations using multiple sources, including government and private hospitals, nursing homes, clinics, diagnostic laboratories, imaging centres, hospices and birth-and-death registrars.
This means cancer information is already being gathered from several parts of the healthcare system.
The question being examined by the court is therefore not whether India should begin collecting cancer data from scratch. It is also about whether cancer reporting should follow a more consistent and mandatory framework across jurisdictions.
The distinction matters because differences in reporting systems can affect how data is collected, compared and interpreted.
5. Why More Consistent Cancer Reporting Matters
Better cancer reporting can have practical implications for public-health planning.
When authorities receive reliable information about diagnosed cases, they can better understand the demand for diagnostic services, oncology facilities, medicines, trained personnel and follow-up care.
Cancer data can also support screening and early-detection programmes. The Ministry of Health and Family Welfare’s national non-communicable disease programme includes population-based screening for common cancers such as oral, breast and cervical cancer, along with early diagnosis, management and referral.
The government has also been using cancer estimates and related health data to plan programmes. According to figures provided by the government based on ICMR-NCRP estimates, India recorded an estimated 14,61,427 cancer cases and 8,08,558 cancer-related deaths in 2022.
These are estimates rather than a complete count of every cancer case diagnosed across the country, which makes the quality and coverage of cancer surveillance important when interpreting national figures.
The debate over cancer reporting is also taking place alongside wider changes in India’s healthcare technology ecosystem. Internal coverage on BusinessPress has also examined developments in health-tech and healthcare investment.
“Public-health planning also needs to consider wider environmental pressures, including air pollution in India, which can affect urban health conditions.”
What Haryana Has Told the Supreme Court
Haryana’s latest submission adds an important state-level perspective to the national debate.
In its affidavit, the state said its existing reporting mechanism already addresses concerns about cancer surveillance and reporting. It also said its Department of Medical Education and Research is working to strengthen cancer registration through a digital system that could integrate cancer registration with existing medical datasets.
The state also referred to mortality data from the Chief Registrar of Births and Deaths in Haryana. According to the affidavit, 521 of the 67,540 death events recorded in the state in 2025 were attributed to cancer. Haryana said directions had been issued to civil surgeons to improve implementation of the medical certification of cause of death system.
These figures relate specifically to Haryana’s records and should not be treated as representative of cancer mortality across India.
The state’s argument is that a separate notification may not be necessary where compulsory reporting already exists. The wider petition, meanwhile, seeks a more uniform system nationally.
The National Question Is About Consistency
The Supreme Court’s August 2026 direction brought attention to differences between states.
At that time, the court was informed that 17 of India’s 36 States and Union Territories had already notified cancer as a notifiable disease. The court subsequently directed the remaining jurisdictions to consider the recommendations and take appropriate decisions.
The Centre has also pointed out that health is primarily a state subject. During the August proceedings, the Centre’s representative argued that cancer is a non-communicable and non-contagious condition and said mandatory notification was not necessarily required for non-communicable diseases.
The differing positions illustrate why creating a nationwide framework is not simply an administrative exercise. It involves questions about how health information is collected, who is responsible for reporting, how patient confidentiality is protected and how information from different healthcare systems can be combined.
What Could Happen Next?
Haryana’s submission is part of an ongoing legal process rather than a final national policy decision.
The Supreme Court had asked States and Union Territories to consider the recommendations and file compliance affidavits. Haryana has now placed its existing reporting system before the court and argued that a separate notification is unnecessary in the state.
The outcome of the proceedings could provide further clarity on whether states should adopt additional reporting requirements or whether existing systems can meet the objectives of cancer surveillance.
For the public, the larger issue is straightforward: accurate and timely information is an important part of planning healthcare services.
India already has a substantial cancer registry infrastructure through ICMR and state-level reporting systems. The current legal debate is about how these systems can provide consistent, reliable and useful information across the country while protecting patient confidentiality.
Conclusion
The debate over cancer reporting in India highlights a less visible but important part of healthcare policy: the quality of information available to governments and health institutions.
Haryana’s position shows that some states already have compulsory cancer-reporting mechanisms, while the Supreme Court proceedings have raised questions about whether reporting should be more consistent across the country.
India’s existing cancer registries, government health programmes and state reporting mechanisms provide an important foundation. The continuing legal process will determine how far these systems need to be strengthened or standardised.
For patients and families, the significance ultimately goes beyond statistics. Better cancer data can help authorities understand where healthcare needs are emerging and plan screening, diagnosis, treatment and follow-up services accordingly.
