The Supreme Court on Tuesday took strong exception and rejected a plea seeking the resignation of West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee in the wake of the alleged rape and murder of a postgraduate trainee doctor in RG Kar Medical College and Hospital on August 9. It also warned the lawyer representing the plea that he would be removed from the court if he continued to treat the court as a political forum.
Rebuking the lawyer for using the court as a political forum, Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, heading a bench also comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra, said, “This is not a political forum. You are a member of the bar. We do not require your affirmation of what we say. What you say has to abide by the rules of legal discipline. We are not here to see what you feel about a political functionary. Your interim application is not our remit. Look, I am sorry else I will have you removed from this court.”
The top court’s strong reprimand of the lawyer came in the course of the hearing of a suo motu (on the court’s own motion) relating to the ‘alleged rape and murder of a trainee postgraduate doctor in RG Kar Medical College and Hospital, Kolkata, and related issue’.
In the hearing lasting over two hours, the court was informed about the settlement that has been reached between the state government and the agitating junior doctors, sanction of work for the infrastructure upgradation in the 28 government medical colleges and hospitals that includes additional duty rooms, restrooms, washroom, installation of CCTV cameras, deployment of security personnel hired from the security agencies for a period of one year, training of over 900 women police personnel at State Police Academy for deployment in medical colleges and hospitals.
However, Chief Justice Chandrachud said that the entire upgradation of infrastructure in medical colleges and hospitals should be a participatory process wherein besides the district collector, district magistrate, senior district police officers, and representative of administration, there should be the principals of medical colleges or the medical superintendent, and the representatives of junior and senior doctors and other stakeholders.
The hearing saw the West Bengal government reiterating its earlier assurance that it would not take any adverse or punitive action against the agitating junior doctors for their absence if they resumed their duties.
At the beginning of the hearing, the court was informed that a settlement has been reached between the state government and the agitating junior doctors in the early hours of Tuesday morning. The court was also informed that though junior doctors have signed the agreement, there are still some issues to be sorted out.
Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, representing the West Bengal government, read out the operative portion of the settlement reached between the West Bengal government and the agitating junior doctors. The said meeting was attended by Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee. Some of the suggestions by senior advocate Indira Jaising – representing the West Bengal Junior Doctors Front – relating to the safety and security of the resident doctors were accepted and noted by the court in its order.
The focus of the settlement was the safety and security of the doctors serving in the medical colleges and hospitals in the state.
Senior advocate Indira Jaising said that the return of the junior doctors back to their work would be dependent on the outcome of their general body meeting and when the general body meeting will take place, she cannot say.
The court also made it clear that it is not revisiting its September 9, 2024, order by which the top court had given the agitating junior doctors two days’ time (By 05.00 pm September 10) to get back to their work as the State government had assured that it would not take any adverse action for their cease work agitation and no punitive transfers of the junior doctors would be made.
Terming the August 9 incident as “an eye opener for us” and “it (state government) does not want it to happen again” Sibal informed the court that work relating to the upgradation of infrastructure at the medical colleges and hospitals would be completed within seven days to two weeks. He said that all this was a part of confidence-building measures and for assuring the doctors about their safety and security.
Sibal said that for augmenting the security at the medical colleges and hospitals, besides the presence of three companies of Central Industrial Security Force (CISF), and state police personnel, more than 1,400 private security guards have been hired from private agencies to provide security cover to doctors, nurses and paramedical staff working in the medical colleges and hospitals. He told the court that these private security persons were being hired for one year only and would be replaced by more than 900 women police personnel currently being trained at the State Police Academy.
However, the court expressed its reservation on deploying private security guards pointing out that the August 9 ghastly crime was committed by a privately deployed person. The CJI said that they are concerned with the safety and security of young doctors who come to medical colleges after the 12th standard.
There are 45 medical colleges and schools in West Bengal.
The West Bengal government accepted a suggestion by CJI Chandrachud to install biometric system at the place approaching the doctors restrooms and the washrooms.
Perusing the status report submitted by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) on its investigation into the alleged rape and murder of the postgraduate trainee doctor and related issues, Chief Justice Chandrachud said that the investigating agency is working on different leads, including addressing concerns expressed in the course of the earlier hearings of the matter by Justice Pardiwala and himself (Chief Justice Chandrachud).
The CJI said that the disclosure of the report in the public domain would jeopardise the investigation.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the CBI, said that the agency has been very careful in its investigation and following the leads and urged that nothing should be done which eventually aids the accused.
In its order, the court said, “We have explained that it would not be in the interest of fair and complete investigation to disclose the leads being pursued by the CBI which will lead to dislocation of investigation and tampering of evidence. All counsel have agreed to the fact that there need not be any further disclosures in the public domain.”