Back
Supreme Court Flags Pattern of Doctor Assaults in Maharashtra, Questions Ideology
The on Monday voiced grave concern over a fresh assault on doctors in Maharashtra, even as it considered a plea by corporator Ramesh Sukrya Mhatre challenging the onerous conditions attached to his in a prior hospital attack. A bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta pointedly observed that the repeated targeting of medical professionals by individuals sharing the same political ideology was unacceptable, calling it both a law-and-order and a public-order issue. The development marks the second time in recent months that the apex court has intervened in cases of violence against doctors in the state, underscoring a troubling pattern that the judiciary is unwilling to ignore.
The case stems from an incident in July when Mhatre and his associates allegedly assaulted doctors and hospital staff at a -run hospital in Dombivli. A initially granted him , but the took and stayed that order. Weeks later, the High Court lifted the and allowed his release—but only under strict conditions, including a direction that Mhatre remain outside Maharashtra and that the trial be fast-tracked. Mhatre then approached the Supreme Court seeking relaxation of those conditions, while the state separately moved to cancel his altogether.
When the matter was called, the bench immediately referred to a similar attack reported just a day earlier in Palghar, where
workers had allegedly threatened and assaulted doctors and hospital staff.
, appearing for Mhatre, attempted to distinguish the incidents by noting that different individuals were involved. But the bench was unimpressed.
"It is not the same group of people. I have checked,"
Rohatgi argued. The court clarified that its concern was not with the specific identities of the accused, but with the underlying ideology. "Same ideology," Justice Nath remarked.
"How can this be justified that you go and assault them inside their chambers, beat them brutally? It’s an issue of law and
both. So they should be actually detained. These people don’t deserve to roam on streets."
The observation echoed the court's earlier stern stance in a similar case involving workers attacking doctors. The bench also questioned Rohatgi's objection to a , asking what was wrong with an expedited process given the gravity of the allegations. Faced with the court's apparent skepticism, Mhatre opted to against the High Court's conditions. The Supreme Court then turned to the state's separate appeal seeking cancellation of his , issued notice to Mhatre, and granted him three weeks to file a response. The matter has been listed for further hearing on .
Legal experts note that the court's emphasis on the "same ideology" behind the attacks is significant. It suggests that the judiciary may be willing to consider the broader context of repeated offenses by individuals associated with a particular political group when evaluating
and
risks. The observation that such offenders
"don't deserve to roam on streets"
signals a strong judicial intolerance for violence against healthcare workers, particularly when it appears coordinated or ideologically motivated.
The case also raises important questions about the use of conditions—such as and —as tools to deter similar offenses. While Mhatre withdrew his challenge, the Supreme Court's eventual decision on the state's cancellation plea could set a precedent for how courts handle repeat offenders in the healthcare sector. Moreover, the court's reference to a "law and " issue may encourage law enforcement agencies to invoke provisions more readily in such cases.
For the legal community, this development underscores the judiciary's proactive role in protecting medical professionals, a concern that has gained urgency in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic and several high-profile attacks on doctors. The Supreme Court's consistent scrutiny of incidents involving the same political ideology may also prompt a broader discussion about the intersection of criminal law, political accountability, and . As the matter awaits its next hearing, the message from the apex court is clear: violence against doctors will not be tolerated, and those responsible—regardless of their affiliations—can expect little leniency.
