NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court of India on Wednesday (29th Jan) directed hospitals, including AIIMS New Delhi, to regularise the period of absence of doctors who had participated in protests against the rape and murder of a trainee doctor at RG Kar Hospital in Kolkata. The decision came after a doctors’ association pointed out that while some hospitals had regularised the absence based on an earlier court order, others, including AIIMS Delhi, were treating it as leave.
Today, On 10th October, , nine protestors, including junior doctors, arrested during RG Kar protests in Kolkata, will appear in court. They decried the arrests as violations of their rights while demanding justice for Abhaya, a victim of rape and murder. Earlier, civic volunteers allegedly manhandled protestors at a Durga Puja pandal.
Today, On 9th September, The Indian Medical Association (IMA) in West Bengal stands firm in their support for the ongoing doctors’ strike, despite the Supreme Court’s order to return to duty. The protests are in response to the rape and murder of a postgraduate doctor in Kolkata. The IMA criticizes the court’s decision and emphasizes the need for justice and the fight against healthcare corruption.
The Supreme Court has deferred the hearing of the R G Kar rape and murder case, as Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud will not be presiding today(5th september). This postponement has triggered widespread protests in Kolkata, with demonstrators calling for immediate justice for the victim.
Today(27th August), the Madhya Pradesh High Court, led by Chief Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva and Justice Vinay Saraf, extended the hearing on junior doctors’ grievances by a week. The session also considered the Supreme Court’s involvement in the related Kolkata rape case.
Today(on 22nd August), The Supreme Court of India resumed hearing the Kolkata doctor’s rape and murder case, with Chief Justice Chandrachud criticizing the reliance on unreliable social media information by the CBI. He urged factual evidence and assured protesting doctors of no punitive action. The court also raised concerns about procedural delays and inconsistencies in handling the case by the state authorities.
