SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(SC) 680

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, CJI., J.B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRA, JJ.
IN RE: Alleged Rape And Murder Incident of A Trainee Doctor
IN
R.G. Kar Medical College And Hospital, Kolkata And Related Issues
SUO MOTO WRIT (Crl) No. 2 of 2024
Date : 22-08-2024

Advocates appeared:
For Petitioner(s): By Courts Motion
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Tushar Mehta, SG Mr. Kanu Agrawal, Adv. Ms. Swati Ghildiyal, Adv. Mr. Arkaj Kumar, Adv. Mr. Madhav Sinhal, Adv. Mr. M.K. Maroria, Adv. Mr. Phiroze Edulje, Adv. Mr. Anjan Datta, Adv. Mr. Vishal Arun Mishra, AOR Ms. Ishita Srivastva, Adv. Mr. Litan Maitra, Adv. Ms. Rupali Panwar, Adv. Mr. Saurabh Sharma, Adv. Ms. Sumon Pathak, Adv. Mr. V.K. Pushpakumar, Adv. Mr. Ibrahim Ahmed, Adv. Mr. Adarsh Kumar, Adv. Mr. Mihir Desai, Sr. Adv. Ms. Jhuma Sen, Adv. Mr. Anirudh Sanganeria, AOR Mr. Kapil Sibal, Sr. Adv. Dr. Menaka Guruswamy, Sr. Adv. Mr. Sanjay Basu, Adv. Ms. Astha Sharma, AOR Mr. Nipun Saxena, Adv. Ms. Anju Thomas, Adv. Ms. Aparajita Jamwal, Adv. Mr. Sanjeev Kaushik, Adv. Ms. Mantika Haryani, Adv. Mr. Shreyas Awasthi, Adv. Mr. Utkarsh Pratap, Adv. Ms. Pratibha Yadav, Adv. Ms. Ripul Swati Kumari, Adv. Mr. Bhanu Mishra, Adv. Ms. Lihzu Shiney Konyak, Adv. Mr. Lavkesh Bhambhani, Adv. Ms. Arunima Das, Adv. Mr. Devadipta Das, Adv. Mr. Archit Adlakha, Adv. Mr. Aditya Raj Pandey, Adv. Ms. Mehreen Garg, Adv. Mr. Abhimanyu Tewari, AOR Ms. Eliza Bar, Adv. Mr. Raghenth Basant, Sr. Adv. Mr. Ravi Raghunath, Adv. Ms. Kaushitaki Sharma, Adv. Ms. Aparajita Singh, Sr. Adv. Ms. Vrinda Bhandari, Adv. Ms. Pragya Barsaiyan, Adv. Ms. Anandita Rana, Adv. Ms. Vanshita Gupta, Adv. Mr. Madhav Aggarwal, Adv. Ms. Sayantani Basak, Adv. Ms. Geeta Luthra, Sr. Adv. Ms. Shivani Luthra Lohia, Adv. Mr. Nitin S., Adv. Mr. Anirban Chanda, Adv. Mr. Aadarsh Kothari, Adv. Ms. Arpita Sahu, Adv. Mr. Shashank Shekhar Jha, Adv. Ms. Priyanka Thakur, Adv. Mr. Vijay Hansaria, Sr. Adv. Ms. Sneha Kalita, Adv. Ms. Kavya Jhawar, Adv. Ms. Nandini Rai, Adv. Mr. Sanjay Hegde, Sr. Adv. Mr. Amanakuttan K.K., Adv. Ms. Rambha Singh, Adv. Mr. Akhilesh Kr. Mishra, Adv. Ms. Karuna Nandy, Sr. Adv. Mr. Sabyasachi Chatterjee, Adv. Mr. Gajendra Negi, Adv. Mr. Subhro Prokas Mukherjee, Adv. Ms. Rishika Rishabh, Adv. Mr. Svarit Vniyal Mishra, Adv. Ms. Kumud Lata Das, Adv. Ms. Pooja Rathore, Adv. Ms. Annwesha Deb, Adv. Mr. Harsh Ajay Singh, Adv. Ms. Shashi Kiran, Sr. Adv. Ms. Sadhana Sandhu, Adv. Ms. Sangeeta Bhalla, Adv. Mr. Pankaj Rishikrishnan, Adv. Mr. Rohit Pandey, Adv. Mr. Ujjwal Gaur, Adv. Ms. Manisha, Adv. Dr. Satish Chandra, Adv. Mr. Maninder Singh, Sr. Adv. Mr. Prabhas Bajaj, Adv. Mr. Rithvik Mathur, Adv. Mr. Priyanshu Tyagi, Adv. Mr. Devadatt Kamath, Sr. Adv. Mr. Satayam Singh, Adv. Mr. Sanjeev Gupta, Adv. Mr. Kushal Kumar, Adv. Mr. Bhanu Kapoor, Adv. Ms. Mudrika Tomar, Adv. Mr. Rajeev Ranjan, Adv. Mr. Shivam Singh, Adv. Mr. Akshay Singh, Adv. Ms. Sneha Rani, Adv. Sheetal Rajput, Adv. Mr. Rahul Kumar Jai, Adv. Mr. Sourav Singh Chauhan, Adv. Mr. Mahesh Jethmalani, Sr. Adv. Mr. Shoumendra Mukherjee, Adv. Ms. Megha Sharma, Adv. Ms. Akanksha Gupta, Adv. Mr. Ajay Awasthi, Adv. Ms. Mugdha Pande, Adv. Mr. Vaibhav Thaledi, Adv. Mr. Danish Iqbal, Adv. Mr. Shrey Singh, Adv. Mr. Firdous Samim, Adv. Ms. Gopa Biswas, Adv. Mr. Ali Asghar Rahim, Adv. Ms. Bansuri Swaraj, Sr. Adv. Mr. Siddhesh Shirish Kotwal, Adv. Mr. Billwadal Bhattacharyya, Adv. Mr. Bikram Banerjee, Adv. Ms. Ana Upadhyay, Adv. Ms. Manya Hasija, Adv. Mr. Tejasvi Gupta, Adv. Mr. Pawan Upadhyay, Adv. Mr. T. Illayarasu, Adv. Ms. Tanvi Dubey, Adv. Mr. Raghav Sabharwal, Adv.

The judgment establishes the principle that the state must balance its regulatory powers with the protection of the right to peaceful protest, particularly in the context of ensuring the safety of medical professionals.

Headnote:

MEDICAL PROFESSIONALS' SAFETY - The court emphasized the need for safety measures for medical professionals, referencing the lawful powers of the state to regulate protests while ensuring peaceful demonstrations are not disrupted. The establishment of a National Task Force (NTF) was highlighted to engage with stakeholders and address concerns regarding the safety of doctors, including the implementation of distress call systems and regulation of duty hours.

Fact of the Case:

The case involves the investigation into the death of a postgraduate doctor at RG Kar Medical College Hospital, with the CBI conducting the inquiry and the Kolkata Police investigating subsequent protests and vandalization of the hospital.

Finding of the Court:

The court acknowledged the submission of status reports from both the CBI and the State of West Bengal, and emphasized the need for a National Task Force to address the safety concerns of medical professionals, while allowing peaceful protests.

Issues: The main issues included the safety of medical professionals during protests, the regulatory powers of the state, and the need for institutional measures to protect doctors at their workplaces.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that while the state has the authority to regulate protests, it must ensure that peaceful demonstrations are not hindered. The establishment of the NTF was deemed essential for addressing the concerns of medical professionals and implementing safety measures.

Final Decision: The court directed the establishment of a web portal for suggestions to the NTF, mandated the engagement of state authorities to implement safety measures, and ensured that no coercive actions would be taken against protesting doctors.

ORDER

1. In compliance of the order dated 20 August 2024, a status report has been submitted by the Central Bureau of Investigation. Likewise, status report and an affidavit have been submitted by the State of West Bengal. The status reports and the affidavit are taken on the record.

2. As already noted earlier, the investigation into the circumstances relating to the death of a postgraduate doctor at RG Kar Medical College Hospital is being conducted by the CBI. The Kolkata Police is looking into the investigation following the vandalization of the hospital after the protests at the site.

3. From the material which has been produced before the Court, it appears that a request for conducting the polygraph test of the accused has been submitted to the ACJM, Sealdah, which is stated “to be under process”. The ACJM shall pass orders on the application no later than by 5 pm on 23 August 2024.

4. During the course of the hearing, a number of counsel have appeared on behalf of diverse stakeholders, including associations representing resident and other doctors. The counsel who have intervened in these proceedings together with the parties for whom they have intervened, are set out below:

(i)

Federation of Resident Doctors Association;

Mr Devadatt Kamat, Sr Adv

(ii)

Delhi Medical Association;

Mr Vijay Hansaria, Sr Adv

(iii)

West Bengal Junior Doctor’s Front

Ms Geeta Luthra, Sr Adv

(iv)

People Union for Civil Liberties, West Bengal.

Mr Mihir Desai, Sr Adv

(v)

Federation of All India Medical Associations;.

Ms Tanvi Dubey, Adv

(vii)

Joint Platform of Doctors, West Bengal;

Ms Karuna Nandy, Sr Adv

(viii)

Resident Doctors Association, AIIMS;

Mr Raghenth Basant, Sr Adv

(ix)

Central. Kolkata. United. Doctors. Welfare Associations;

Ms Aparajita Singh, Sr Adv

(x)

United Doctor’s Front Associations;

Mr. Shashank. Shekhar. Jha, Adv

(xi)

Indian Medical Association (IMA);

Mr Maninder Singh, Sr Adv

(xii)

The Federation of Association of Medical Consultants of India;

Mr Jamshed Mistry, Adv

(xiii)

Original Petitioners in WPA (P) No 332/2024 before the High Court of Calcutta;

Ms Bansuri Swaraj, Sr Adv

(xiv)

All India Federation of Government Doctors Associations;

Mr Shreekrishna Ganbawale, Adv

(xv)

Victim. for. Private. Doctors. Association, Calcutta;

Mr Ashok Bhan, Sr Adv

(xvi)

Medico Legal Society of India;

Dr. Rajeev Joshi, In-person

(xvii)

Aadi – A Step Towards Humanity

Mr Anuj Kumar Dhaka, Adv

(xviii)

Sreerupa Mitra Chaudhury

Mr Mahesh Jethmalani, Sr Adv

(xix)

Joint Platform of Doctors, West Bengal.

Ms Karuna Nandy, Sr Adv

5. While constituting a National Task Force [“NTF”], this Court had specifically clarified that the NTF should engage with diverse stakeholders. Consequently, the NTF should hear representatives of diverse stakeholders so as to enable it to have inputs from all those who are concerned with the process which has been initiated by this Court for maintaining safety and well being of the doctors and other medical professionals at their work places.

6. During the course of the hearing, counsel have placed some additional suggestions which may be taken into account by the NTF, including:

    (i). Institutionalization of distress call systems;

    (ii). Regulation of duty hours; and

    (iii). Constitution of a compensation distress fund.

7. The above suggestions may be considered by NTF whose remit has been couched in broad terms by this Court. The views of diverse stakeholders including the Interns, Residents, Senior Residents, doctors and nurses as well as of the para-medical staff would be taken into account by the NTF before its recommendations are made.

8. To facilitate the filing of suggestions before the NTF, we direct the Secretary in the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top