Today, On 22nd August, The CJI urged political leaders from TMC and BJP not to politicize the RG Kar Medical College rape and murder case. The Court emphasized the need for restraint in public statements, ensuring the focus remains on justice. Additionally, it ordered that no coercive actions be taken against doctors nationwide who participated in protests related to the incident.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court, On Thursday, advised political parties and the government to refrain from politicizing the tragic rape and murder of a resident doctor at RG Kar Medical College and Hospital in Kolkata on August 9.
A Bench led by Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud, along with Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, expressed concern over the Central Bureau of Investigation and the State of West Bengal engaging in a blame game in court, sparked by statements made by leaders from the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and Trinamool Congress (TMC).
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the CBI, remarked,
“A sitting minister of the State of West Bengal says fingers pointing towards Mamata Banerjee will be chopped off.”
In response, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, speaking for the West Bengal government, countered,
“And the leader of opposition, Suvendu Adhikari, has said bullets will be fired.”
The Court, emphasizing the need for restraint, stated,
“Do not politicise the situation. The law will take its course.”
The Court expressed its concern for the safety and welfare of doctors, stating that it intends to issue enforceable directions rather than mere guidelines. As a result, the Court ordered that no coercive actions be taken against doctors across India who participated in protests following the incident.
At the same time, the Court urged doctors to promptly return to their duties, emphasizing the importance of ensuring that patients who rely on public health services do not suffer due to the protests.
The Court acknowledged concerns from doctors about potential actions being taken against them for participating in past protests.
The Court stated,
“An apprehension has been expressed by the doctors that some of them are being proceeded against with respect to protests that happened in the past. We have been assured that doctors will return to work, and let there be no coercive action taken against doctors after they come back to work following the date of today’s order. No adverse action should be taken against doctors after they resume work for any protest that occurred before the date of today’s order.”
The Bench further emphasized that judges and doctors, who deal with life and liberty, cannot afford to go on strike.
The Bench questioned,
“Justice and medicine cannot go on strike. Can we (judges) go and sit outside the Supreme Court now?”
The Delhi Medical Association informed the Court that FIRs had been filed against some doctors from the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) who participated in the protests.
The Court then inquired,
“How long have you been protesting?”
The counsel responded,
“Since the day of the incident.”
The Court remarked,
“Then AIIMS doctors have not been working for 13 days… please get back to work. We have ensured no coercive action, provided there are no protests after the date of today’s order.”
The Court was addressing a suo motu case it had initiated concerning the incident.
Several medical associations and professional bodies have submitted intervention applications to the Supreme Court, seeking specific directions on the matter.
The tragic incident occurred on August 9, when a resident doctor was found dead in a seminar hall at RG Kar Medical College. An autopsy later confirmed that she had been raped and murdered.
Read Also: [Doctor’s Rape and Murder Case] Calcutta HC Permits BJP’s 5-Day Protest
This shocking event triggered widespread outrage and protests across the country, with doctors in various regions going on strike, demanding stricter laws and better policing to ensure the safety of medical professionals.
The investigation into the case is currently being conducted by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), following an order from the Calcutta High Court, which transferred the probe to the central agency. In response, the Supreme Court initiated the suo motu case.
During an earlier hearing, the Supreme Court issued several directives, including the formation of a National Task Force (NTF) to address issues related to the safety and dignity of doctors and medical professionals. The task force also expected to tackle gender-based violence and other workplace safety concerns faced by medical professionals.
The Court also instructed the CBI to provide a status report on the progress of its investigation into the case. Additionally, the State of West Bengal ordered to submit a status report on the investigation into acts of vandalism that occurred at the hospital and its premises following the crime.
During today’s hearing, Resident Doctors from AIIMS Nagpur raised concerns about being penalized for participating in protests, including being barred from taking their exams.
The Chief Justice of India responded,
“If they are on duty, they will not be marked absent. If they are not on duty, then the law will take its course. Ask them to first return to work. No one will take adverse action against any doctor. If there are issues after that, then come to us. But let them first report to work.”
The lawyer representing the doctors confirmed,
“They have now reported back to work.”
A similar issue brought up by doctors from Chandigarh, who stated,
“Doctors are being victimized. They rally for one hour in the morning and then continue working… but they are also…”
The CJI remarked,
“The seasoned directors who lead these institutions would never do something like this.”
The counsel mentioned,
“Their casual leaves are being deducted.”
In response, the Chief Justice of India stated,
“Once they return to duty, we will encourage authorities not to take adverse action. After all, how will the public health infrastructure function if the doctors do not work?”
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta added,
“An assurance from this Court should satisfy the doctors.”
The CJI further clarified that while it is not feasible to include every doctors’ association in the National Task Force, the task force will ensure all voices are heard.
The CJI assured,
“The reason for this broad-based National Task Force is that all stakeholders will be consulted, including the resident doctors. They will be heard. If we start including representatives from every group, the committee’s work could be disrupted. We are aware that the committee includes senior women doctors who have dedicated their lives to public health. The committee will listen to everyone—interns, residents, senior residents, nurses, paramedical staff. It will ensure that all representatives are heard,”
Senior Advocate Devadatt Kamat, representing nearly 30,000 resident doctors, emphasized that they should also have a voice.
The CJI reassured him, stating,
“Please assure the resident doctors that they will be heard by the committee.”
The Chief Justice of India (CJI) noted the large number of intervention applications before the Court, all seeking various directions.
He suggested,
“If all of you representing different bodies can provide a list of names and the respective organizations, we will include them in the order, and the committee can then take steps to engage with all these bodies.”
Senior Advocate Vijay Hansaria, representing the Delhi Medical Association, proposed the creation of a grievance redressal system for doctors.
He suggested,
“There should be an institutional FIR within two hours of a crime, a grievance redressal number, and expedited handling of similar cases involving attacks on doctors,”
The CJI shared his personal experience, recounting,
“I have slept on the floor of a public hospital when a family member was unwell. We know that doctors often work 36-hour shifts, which is not acceptable. Our order from August 20 highlighted the hierarchical nature of public hospitals, where junior doctors are vulnerable to various forms of harassment, not just sexual harassment. We have received numerous emails about this issue, and it’s a serious concern.”
Senior Advocate Geeta Luthra, representing junior resident doctors at RG Kar, reported that they were being threatened.
She said,
“The junior resident doctors at RG Kar are facing threats from members of the administration and people within the hospital,”
Senior Advocate Karuna Nundy, also representing doctors in Kolkata, added,
“Yes, I represent doctors in Kolkata. There are goons involved.”
The CJI responded,
“This is serious. Please provide us with the names, and we will take note of this.”
Nundy further mentioned the need to address the Court regarding the Special Investigation Team (SIT) set up by the West Bengal government.
“We represent five associations of doctors. There are institutional issues concerning financial matters and the rape incident. We need to discuss the SIT as well, which was set up by the West Bengal government to investigate these irregularities.”
The CBI and the West Bengal government submitted their status reports. The CBI tasked with reporting on the progress of the investigation into the rape and murder, while the State was asked to update the Court on the investigation into the acts of vandalism that occurred at the hospital following the crime.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the CBI, stated that the central agency took over the investigation on the fifth day after the crime, by which time the crime scene had already been altered.
After reviewing the reports, the CJI expressed concern about the delay in securing the crime scene.
He pointed out.,
“One aspect is very disturbing. The unnatural death entry was made at 10:10 am. The police were informed then that it was an unnatural death, yet the crime scene was not secured until the night,”
Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, representing the State of West Bengal, refuted this claim.
He stated,
“No, no, no. I have provided a timeline backed by videography,”
Solicitor General Mehta requested access to the same timeline, to which Sibal replied,
“Yes, we will provide it.”
Mehta then remarked,
“You are bound to provide this to the CBI.”
The Court proceeded to question the State on the timeline of events, particularly focusing on the registration of the Unnatural Death (UD) Report and the timing of the autopsy.
Justice Pardiwala inquired,
“When you took the body for post-mortem, was it considered an unnatural death? If not, what was the need for a post-mortem? When you start a post-mortem, it’s a case of unnatural death. The UD case 861 of 2024 was registered at 23:30 hours, and the FIR was registered at 23:45. Is this record correct?”
Sibal responded,
“The UD was registered at 1:45 pm.”
The Bench questioned,
“How do we reconcile these two reports? Post-mortem before the registration of UD is surprising. Please speak to the officers and provide a responsible statement, not a rash one.”
Sibal maintained that the UD report was indeed registered at 1:45 pm on the day of the crime
The Bench insisted,
“Show us where this is documented. Please have a responsible police officer present here. We still haven’t received a clear answer on when the UD case was registered,”
Sibal referred to Page 2 of the case diary.The Court asked, When was the inquest panchnama done? Sibal replied, “From 4:20 to 4:40 pm.” The Bench then pointed out, that the report shows that the UD case registered after the inquest panchnama and post-mortem.
Sibal countered, “No, if you see the magistrate’s report, the UD time is mentioned.”
Justice Pardiwala expressed concern,
“The procedure followed here by the police is not typical under the CRPC, nor have I seen this in my 30 years. Is it true that the post-mortem occurred after the UD report?”
The conduct of the Assistant Superintendent of Police was also questioned. “Who is the Assistant Superintendent of Police? Her conduct appears very doubtful. Why did she act this way?”
The CJI then attempted to trace the timeline using the case diary.
The CJI observed,
“See your document… GD entry is at 5:20 am, the hospital reported that the lady was found in a half-naked condition at 10:10 am, and the medical board indicated possible forceful sexual penetration. The GD entry shows the area was cordoned off after the post-mortem. The magistrate conducted the inquest under videography, and incriminating material was found under the mattress. The on-duty RMO was examined,”
He concluded,
“It is clear that the UD case was registered at 11:30 pm after the officer returned to the police station. This happened after the post-mortem, as indicated in the case diary.”
Sibal insisted,to see page 2 of the case diary, the second last paragraph.
Justice Pardiwala suggested,
“Let the CBI look into this. It seems this may have been added later.”
Sibal highlighted the report from the Chief Judicial Magistrate, emphasizing that it could clarify the timeline. He pointed out that the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (ACJM) signed the inquest report, ensuring its authenticity.
Sibal argued that the Unnatural Death (UD) report registered before the autopsy and that the post-mortem report, seizure list, and inquest report all referenced the UD case report time and number. He questioned how it could have been registered at 11:30 pm when all these documents were prepared before 8:30 pm, noting that the original case diary had been handed over to the CBI.
However, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the CBI, contended that the UD was actually registered at 11:30 pm. Sibal disputed this, demanding the video CD as evidence. Mehta responded by referencing the general diary entry, explaining that a UD case was officially recorded at 11:30 pm after the officer returned to the police station, while earlier there had only been a General Diary (GD) entry. Sibal accused Mehta of trying to muddy the waters.
The matter clarified when it was shown that the post-mortem report itself mentioned the UD report, with Justice Pardiwala confirming its presence in the first line. The CJI concluded that the UD report had indeed been recorded before the post-mortem. Sibal reinforced this, stating there was no doubt and that the records would confirm it. The CJI then questioned why the Investigating Officer claimed the UD case was recorded after returning to the police station at night, to which Sibal explained that the officer needed to document everything that had occurred.
The Court also dismissed a misleading claim regarding the recovery of 151 grams of semen from the victim’s body, clarifying that the post-mortem report correctly mentioned 151 milligrams.
The CJI cautioned,
“Let’s not make arguments based on social media posts. We now have the post-mortem report before us and understand what that 151 refers to. Legal arguments should not be based on what is read on social media.”