The Supreme Court will hear a crucial case today(17th Sept), on the rape and murder of a resident doctor in Kolkata, which has led to widespread protests by doctors in West Bengal. This suo motu action highlights the escalating national concern over justice and safety.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court of India is scheduled to hear a case today(September 17), concerning the horrifying rape and murder of a resident doctor at RG Kar Medical College and Hospital in Kolkata. This case, initiated through Suo motu action by the court, has sparked massive protests by doctors across West Bengal. As the nation watches closely, junior doctors continue their strike, demanding justice for their colleague and pressing for better hospital safety measures.
The Supreme Court hearing comes at a critical time, as the resident doctors steadfastly refuse to return to work, defying a previous court order that directed them to resume duties by 5 p.m. on September 10. Despite the strike’s impact, the West Bengal government is particularly concerned about its severe consequences on healthcare services. According to reports-
“the absence of the doctors has resulted in the deaths of 23 patients by September 9,”
the date of the last hearing.
This prolonged unrest has resulted in public outrage, with the deteriorating conditions in hospitals across the state heightening tensions. Patients have borne the brunt of this crisis, causing the government to repeatedly urge the striking doctors to return to work.
The West Bengal government has made multiple attempts to resolve the deadlock. On Monday(September 16), the government extended an invitation to the protesting doctors for what was described as the “fifth and final time” for talks. However, previous attempts at negotiation have failed. One key reason for this is the junior doctors’ demand for live-streaming the meeting, a request that the government has continuously rejected.
In an official email, West Bengal Chief Secretary Manoj Pant invited the doctors to a meeting with Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee at her residence in Kalighat. The timing of the meeting was set for Monday(16th Sept) evening at 5 p.m.
Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee has made personal efforts to diffuse the situation. On September 14, she visited the protest site, offering reassurances and urging the doctors to call off their strike. However, despite her outreach, the situation took a turn for the worse.
The doctors reported that after waiting outside the Chief Minister’s residence for over three hours on Saturday, they were asked to leave “unceremoniously.” This exacerbated the tensions, as the protestors emphasized their demand for live telecasting the meeting, a point of contention that remains unresolved.
According to the Supreme Court’s website, the suo motu case regarding the horrific incident at RG Kar Medical College is scheduled as the first item on the docket for today’s hearing. A bench comprising Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud and Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra will preside over the proceedings.
In the previous hearing on September 9, the court raised concerns over the missing “challan” — a crucial document that should have accompanied the deceased doctor’s body for postmortem. The bench demanded an explanation from the West Bengal government regarding this procedural lapse.
At the time, the court had ordered the striking doctors to return to work immediately, warning of potential punitive measures. This directive was given with the assurance of senior lawyer Kapil Sibal, representing the state government, that no adverse actions, including punitive transfers, would be taken against the doctors.
Despite these clear instructions, the situation remains unresolved, and today’s hearing is expected to provide new developments as the court continues to monitor the unfolding crisis.
The tragic incident that led to the protests occurred on August 9, when the junior doctor’s body was found with severe injuries inside the seminar hall of the hospital’s chest department. The case has drawn intense criticism due to the delayed investigation by local authorities.
On August 22, the Supreme Court expressed concern over the Kolkata Police’s failure to register the case promptly as one of unnatural death, describing the delay as “extremely disturbing.” Furthermore, the court raised questions about the delay in completing procedural formalities that hampered the progress of the investigation.
Initially, the Kolkata Police faced harsh criticism for their handling of the case. Despite the arrest of a civic volunteer on August 10, the investigation seemed to lack momentum. In response to public pressure and growing concerns about the impartiality of the investigation, the Calcutta High Court transferred the case to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) on August 13. The CBI officially began its investigation on August 14, but the case remains far from being resolved.
In light of the widespread protests and street demonstrations not only in Kolkata but also in several cities across India, the Supreme Court took an additional step by forming a 10-member National Task Force (NTF). This task force is entrusted with developing a protocol aimed at ensuring the safety and security of healthcare professionals, a growing concern in the wake of the brutal crime.
Previously, the Supreme Court described the incident as “horrific” and admonished the West Bengal government for its failure to file a First Information Report (FIR) promptly. Moreover, the court sharply criticized the state’s failure to prevent a mob from vandalizing the medical facility where the attack took place.
As the case continues to unfold, the number of lawyers involved has surged dramatically. By September 9, the court recorded a total of 210 lawyers’ appearances, with seven respondents and seven applicants appearing in person.
An anonymous advocate, appearing in today’s hearing, commented that while this is an unusually high number of lawyers-
“Previously, too, there have been cases where the number of lawyers appearing had exceeded 100.”
Veteran advocate Milon Mukherjee highlighted that the case comprises 33 different matters, leading to multiple lawyers representing various parties.
“Normally, we don’t see these many lawyers appearing in a matter, but in cases where individual cases are turned into PILs, the magnitude increases,”
-Mukherjee said.
