The recently formulated guidelines by Khilnani GC et al. for the prescription of antibiotics for critically ill patients present an extensive compilation of evidence and recommendations. Despite their comprehensive nature, several inconsistencies need addressing. In this commentary, we delve into some of these discrepancies in the order in which they appeared in the guidelines, starting with the misrepresentation of “nonbronchoscopic bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL)” and “mini BAL” as different techniques when they are, in fact, identical. Secondly, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in the year 2013 replaced the older, unreliable ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) definition with ventilator-associated events (VAE). This new VAE definition eliminates subjectivity in pneumonia diagnosis by focusing on objective criteria for ventilator support changes, avoiding dependence on potentially inaccurate chest X-rays and inconsistent medical record keeping. Thus, using the term VAP in the Indian guidelines seems regressive. Furthermore, the recommendation for routine anaerobic coverage in aspiration pneumonia is outdated and unsupported by current evidence. Lastly, while endorsing multiplex polymerase chain reaction (PCR) for pathogen identification, the guidelines fail to adequately address its limitations and the risk of overdiagnosis.