The Rajasthan High Court, while observing that doctors and lawyers are not expected to resort to strike, has urged the resident doctors of JARD to call off their strike as it allegedly created a “dismaying situation that the general public.” The Court allowed a petition under Section 528 of the BNSS that highlighted the issues the general public was facing due to the ongoing strike by the doctors and allied staff of medical therapeutics regarding the safety and protection of the doctors, especially the female doctors. The Court Commissioners also reported “melancholy at the hospital” due to the absence of critical staff, noting “severe hardships” faced by OPD and the need to postpone certain operations due to the strike.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
JAIPUR: The Rajasthan High Court highlighted the expectation that professionals such as doctors and lawyers should not engage in strikes. The Court made an earnest appeal to the resident doctors affiliated with the Jaipur Association of Resident Doctors (JARD) to terminate their ongoing strike, which has allegedly led to a “dismaying situation that the general public.”
This decision came as the Court deliberated over a petition filed under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nayaya Sanhita (BNS), which underscored the adverse impacts on the public due to the strike involving doctors and associated medical staff.
This strike, primarily related to concerns over the safety and protection of medical professionals, particularly female doctors, had reportedly created significant disruptions.
Court Commissioners provided detailed accounts describing the “melancholy at the hospital” due to the absence of essential medical staff and highlighted the “severe hardships” faced by Outpatient Department (OPD) services.
The reports also noted the necessity to postpone several surgical procedures, further exacerbating the public health situation.
A Single Bench led by Justice Sameer Jain remarked-
“Considering the submissions made insofar and scanning the judgments cited at the Bar this Court expects that the doctors and lawyers should not resort to strike. Moreover, the same is even provided in the Code of Ethics for Doctors prescribed in Regulations of 2002, it also provides duties and responsibilities of the transmission in general and to their patients. The patients must not been neglected; duties of doctors and the para-medical staff; unethical acts; human rights misconduct etc. reading of ethics also makes it clear that the strike cannot be resorted to by the members of such a noble profession. This Court further believes that it is the moral, social, professional duty of the Doctors who are under oath (Hippocratic Oath), to not make any innocent suffer.”
This petition was presented by the petitioner in person, while AAG G.S. Gill represented the respondents. The Indian Express reported that the strike led to widespread consequences, including the postponement of hundreds of surgeries, disruption of OPD operations, and suspension of regular medical consultations.
This strike came at a critical juncture, with an alarming increase in cases of seasonal illnesses like malaria, dengue, and various viral fevers. The petition argued that the strike impeded the rights guaranteed under Article 21 and Article 14 of the Indian Constitution, which assure the right to life and equality before the law.
Moreover, the petition invoked Section 125 of the BNS, 2023, outlining penalties for actions that compromise public safety. In meetings with JARD officials, it was revealed that the strike stemmed from persistent issues related to safety protocols, stipends, and policy matters.
Doctors voiced that repeated appeals to higher authorities for improving safety measures, particularly for female doctors, and demands for adequate allowances had gone unheeded. Nevertheless, the doctors conveyed their willingness to conclude the strike if their grievances were properly addressed.
The Secretary of Medical Education acknowledged previous discussions held with resident doctors to resolve their concerns. The department underscored its stance against strikes, emphasizing that such actions “affect the lives of patients” and increase “pressure upon the manpower working in place of the Resident Doctors.”
After reviewing the matter, the High Court ordered the creation of an internal committee to address the grievances of the doctors while stressing the urgent resumption of medical services. The Court stated-
“The Secretary, Medical Education has assured that the aforestated committee shall be formulated without further ado, and the same shall have appropriate representation of the aggrieved Resident Doctors. Moreover, the primary motive of the said committee shall be to tender appropriate and lawful audience to the aggrieved and resolve their hitches.”
The Court continued-
“This Court after considering the aforementioned has foremost urged the Resident Doctors to call-off their strike and request their fellow doctors to rejoin their duties. The same is accepted by the doctors representing JARD,”
-signaling a positive move towards ending the strike.
It further added,
“Secretary as a Chairman of the committee will be at liberty to pass any interim decision, considering the writ large effect and interest of the general public. Additionally, while passing the said, the grievances and plea of the Resident Doctors shall also be considered.”
Consequently, the High Court has scheduled the matter for further hearing on November 21, 2024.
- Petitioner: Amici Curiae Suresh Kumar Sahini, S.S. Hora, and Kapil Gupta; Court Commissioners Ajay Shukla and Tiwari
- Respondent: AAG G.S. Gill, Rajesh Choudhary, and Vigyan Shah; AGC Yash Joshi and Archit Bohra; Addl. G.C. Pulkit Bhardwaj; PP Manvendra Singh Shekhawat and Rishi Raj Singh Rathore.
Case Title:
Parth Sharma v. State Of Rajasthan
Click Here to Read Previous Reports on Lawyers & Doctors
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
