Analysis

Kolkata rape and murder case | “Why is the progress so tardy?” Supreme Court asks West Bengal government

The bench reviewed the CBI’s fourth status report in the case and stressed that the deceased doctor’s identity be protected

In Re: Alleged rape and murder incident of a trainee doctor in R.G. Kar Medical College and Hospital, Kolkata and related issues | Day 5

Today, a bench of Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud with Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra heard the R.G. Kar rape and murder case for the fifth time. The Court had taken suo moto cognisance of the matter last month, reasoning that the incident raised concerns about the safety of doctors across the country. 

Though listed as the 46th case to be heard in the Chief’s courtroom, the bench attended to other cases on its docket, stating that it would hear the RG Kar case at 2 pm. By the time the bench got around to the case, however, it was well past 4 pm—the time the court closes. After taking a “comfort break,” however, the bench returned and heard the matter for over an hour after closing time. “Many people are waiting,” the Chief remarked. 

Senior Advocate Vrinda Grover representing the parents of the deceased doctor, opened the day’s arguments by submitting two letters to the bench. One letter highlighted that the name and identity of the doctor were still being circulated on social media. The bench directed the Union to designate a nodal counsel from the Ministry of Information and Electronic Technology to ensure that the deceased doctor’s name, identity and photographs are not circulated in the public domain. 

“Substantial leads in the CBI investigation

After reviewing the CBI’s report, the Chief noted that the report was bifurcated into two parts. The first part, the bench said, dealt with the rape and murder of the trainee doctor and the second part dealt with the financial irregularities pointed out by the Calcutta High Court. 

A detail that seemed to grab the Chief’s attention was the fact that the victim’s injuries were aggravated by her glasses. “Did the attack take place when she was asleep?’ he asked. The Union responded that she may have fallen asleep with her spectacles. 

Counsel representing doctors associations informed the bench that several persons who were involved in the incident continued to hold positions of power. The doctors’ associations requested that the people involved be temporarily suspended from service, or be asked to take a leave of absence. 

“How can we be expected to work in the same hospital where the incident has occurred when they continue to hold power there?” Senior Advocate Indira Jaising representing the Junior Doctors Association said. 

The bench assured doctors’ associations that the CBI’s investigation was already dealing with the issue and directed the State to take appropriate action. They also directed the CBI to appraise them about these people who continue to hold positions of responsibility by the next hearing. 

The Chief noted that given the course of the CBI’s investigation, it would not be appropriate to disclose any details at this point but stated that the agency had found “substantial leads” on both fronts—the rape and murder and the financial irregularities. They stated that the CBI would clarify if the two aspects were connected. 

“Why is the progress so tardy?”

During the last hearing, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal appearing for the State of West Bengal had drawn the Court’s attention to a long list of security measures that the state government had undertaken at the R.G. Kar College Hospital and other government hospitals in the state. Amongst other things, he informed the bench that the state had sanctioned the installation of 415 new CCTV cameras, 563 additional duty rooms for male doctors and 724 additional duty rooms for female doctors across hospitals.

Today, the bench inquired about the status of these security measures. Sibal was absent. Senior Advocate Rakesh Dwivedi appeared for the state today. He informed the bench that they had submitted an affidavit detailing the status. The bench reviewed the status and remarked that none of the measures had seen more than 50 percent progress. 

“Why is the progress so tardy?” the Chief questioned. Dwivedi responded that there were some logistical issues in the sanction of funds. Senior Advocate Menaka Guruswamy, also for West Bengal, added that the recent floods in the state were another reason for the delay. 

Dwivedi assured the bench that the state would make “all endeavours” make significant progress by 15 October, though they needed till the 30 of the month. The bench placed his assurance on record. 

“Essential and emergency services”

Today, Jaising submitted that contrary to what was being reported, all the junior doctors had returned to work. Dwivedi responded that they had only resumed emergency services. 

“Does this include In-Patient-Department services (IPD) and Out-Patient-Department services (OPD) services?” the Chief inquired. Jaising responded that the junior doctors had resumed “all essential and emergency services.” Essential services, she said included OPD services. 

CJI Chandrachud placed on record that Jaising had “categorically stated that all doctors are and shall perform all essential and emergency services including IPD and OPD services,” binding her and junior doctors to the claim.

“The Task Force is not state-specific”

Towards the end of the hearings, Jaising presented another concern. She pointed out that the nine-member National Task Force set up by the Court on the first day of hearings did not have any members from West Bengal. She appealed to the Court to modify the panel and include one from the state. 

The bench, however, stated that the task force and the pan-India protocol it was formulating were not state-specific. They further told Jaising that if they appointed a representative from West Bengal, they had to do so for other states as well. Therefore, they advised her to email the convening authority of the Task Force and present their concerns to them, assuring them that the Task Force would take their concerns into account.

The case will be heard again the week after the Court resumes official work after the Dussehra break on 14 October 2024. 

Exit mobile version