The court said it had already laid down relevant directions earlier and it could not take responsibility for monitoring everything happening in the country.
New Delhi – On Wednesday, the Supreme Court of India declined to examine three petitions that asked for new guidelines to protect doctors from the increasing cases of violence against them.
The court said it had already laid down relevant directions earlier and it could not take responsibility for monitoring everything happening in the country.
A bench comprising Justices Bela M Trivedi and Prasanna B Varale told the petitioners that the Supreme Court cannot do everything. Referring to its earlier judgment on the issue, the court said the petitioners were free to seek relief through appropriate legal processes.
“You cannot expect the Supreme Court to do everything and monitor each and every activity,” the bench observed.
An advocate representing the petitioners raised the issue of rising attacks on doctors, to which the bench responded:
“These are all very unfortunate incidents but the Supreme Court cannot monitor each and every incident sitting here.”
The petitions, filed in 2022, highlighted the increasing assaults on medical professionals and demanded the creation of comprehensive protection guidelines.
One of the pleas also called for a CBI investigation into the suicide of a woman gynaecologist in Dausa, Rajasthan.
The doctor reportedly died by suicide after being harassed by a mob following a patient’s death due to excessive bleeding during childbirth.
The petitioner’s counsel reminded the court that on October 21, 2022, the top court had issued a notice to the Centre and others, asking for their replies regarding these pleas. He also expressed frustration over inaction despite previous court judgments.
“So what is the point in again giving guidelines?” the bench asked.
When the lawyer pointed out that Parliament had also looked into the matter, the judges replied:
“It is for the parliament to do.”
The lawyer further argued that the police needed training to handle cases involving attacks on doctors. However, the bench maintained:
“These are all policy matters.”
Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, representing one of the petitioners, raised concerns about the growing number of police complaints registered against doctors whenever a patient died during treatment.
“How can such a general allegation be made against all police stations?” the bench asked.
The judges emphasized that the Supreme Court had already issued protective guidelines in a previous ruling. Violating those directions would amount to contempt of court.
“How general directions could be given like this?” the bench asked again.
Sankaranarayanan argued that the earlier guidelines were not enough to fully address the issue.
“I am saying, once this guidelines have been laid down by your lordships, then it has to be supplemented and strengthened,” he said.
Despite his arguments, the bench remained unwilling to entertain the pleas and suggested that the petitioners approach the concerned High Courts.
“It is for the parliament to enact a law on this,” the bench said.
Sankaranarayanan later requested the Supreme Court to transfer the case to the Delhi High Court, since four state governments had already submitted their responses.
But the bench pointed out that the case involved Rajasthan, and transferring it to Delhi would not be appropriate for all parties.
“The other state government’s cannot be asked to go to the Delhi High Court,” the court remarked.
One of the pleas stated that doctors were being attacked across India whenever a patient died, even in situations where the doctors were not at fault. The plea asked for a mechanism to compensate the families and dependents of doctors who lost their lives while serving the public.
