Today(on 12th July), The Supreme Court declined a plea for additional measures to prevent violence against doctors, asserting existing laws are sufficient and petitioners can approach relevant courts for specific cases. A bench led by Justice Sanjiv Khanna deliberated on the Delhi Medical Association’s writ petition, noting the recurring incidents highlighted by Senior Advocate Vijay Hansaria.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!![[BREAKING] Violence Against Doctors | "Laws Already Exist": Supreme Court Refuses to Entertain Plea to Prevent Violence](https://i0.wp.com/lawchakra.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/Screenshot-2024-06-19-100148.png?resize=820%2C460&ssl=1)
NEW DELHI: Today(on 12th July), The Supreme Court declined to entertain a plea seeking additional measures to prevent acts of violence against doctors, stating that existing laws are sufficient to address such issues. The court emphasized that petitioners have the liberty to approach relevant courts regarding specific instances of violence.
A bench comprising Justice Sanjiv Khanna, Justice Sanjay Karol, and Justice Sanjeev Kumar deliberated on the writ petition filed by the Delhi Medical Association. Senior Advocate Vijay Hansaria, representing the petitioner, argued that instances of violence against doctors were recurring.
However, Justice Khanna responded, stating-
“Existing laws already address the issue.”
He mentioned his recent visit to a hospital where he observed placards stating-
“Violence against doctors is a grave offense.”
Despite acknowledging the existing laws, Senior Advocate Hansaria expressed concerns about the need for more preventive measures.
ALSO READ: “Is at the Behest of Some One?”: CJI | Multiple PILs Dismissed by SC on Reopening Day
He stated-
“The focus is on implementing preventive measures,”
and acknowledged that legislative directives cannot be easily implemented.
When Justice Khanna mentioned that every hospital and casualty has a police officer, Hansaria countered-
“This situation is not prevalent in all hospitals, especially those located in rural areas.”
This highlights the disparity in security measures between urban and rural healthcare facilities.
Justice Khanna reiterated that the law already provides for dealing with individuals who engage in violence against medical professionals.
“Anyone who engages in violence must be dealt with according to the IPC.”
– he said, emphasizing that the main issue lies in the implementation of these laws rather than the absence of them.
The bench refused to entertain the plea, suggesting that in case of any specific difficulties, the association of doctors could approach the competent court.
The court stated-
“If any difficulty arises in a particular case, the doctors’ association can raise the issue before the competent court.”
The plea, filed in 2021, highlighted the vulnerability of medical professionals and healthcare workers to assaults and lynchings by dissatisfied family members of patients. It pointed out the lack of substantial central legislation for the protection of medical professionals and sought guidelines for a 24X7 security system to ensure a safe working environment.
