top of page
Search
  • Sayak De
    • Jul 25
    • 3 min read

SC Refuses to Entertain Plea on Protection of Doctors from Violence, Says Existing Laws Sufficient

Sayak De,

Central University of Haryana

Lead:

In a significant decision, the Supreme Court has dismissed the Delhi Medical Association's petition, who sought directions to the authorities for adequate security at hospitals and medical centers, ensuring the safety of doctors and healthcare workers against assaults from patients, relatives, and others, saying laws already exist to deal with such instances. [1]

Body:

In 2021, the DMA, which is a fraternity of more than 1500 medical members, had filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) under Article 32 seeking several directions from the Apex Court as to – installation of proper and effective security systems (24x7) in hospitals, medical centers, nursing homes, other clinical and healthcare facilities; display of banners and notice boards related to punishment and fines in both vernacular and English languages; establishment of protected zones to prevent weapons being brought in; establishment of a distress fund for mandatory compensation to deceased healthcare workers, and so on. [2]

The petition highlights the fact of the increased number of assaults and verbal abuse and ‘extreme incidents of public lynching’ of doctors and health workers, which at instances lead to death. Though the Epidemic Diseases (Amendment) Act, 2020, and the National Disaster Management Act, 2005, exist, these are applicable only during the pandemic. The petition refers to the report of a medical journal, namely ‘The Lancet’, which unfolds the fact that “nearly 75% of doctors in India have faced either verbal or physical violence during their lifetime.” [3]

However, on 11th July 2024, a bench of three judges, Sanjiv Khanna, Sanjay Karol, and Sanjay Kumar, observed that such kind of violence can be dealt with under the Indian Penal Code, and the only question is the implementation of the law. In case of any difficulty in a particular case, it can be taken up before the competent court by the Petitioner Association of Doctors. [4]

Justice Khanna mentioned to the Council for DMA that a recent visit to a hospital by the Justice himself showed that placards were displayed saying violence against doctors is a serious offense. Nullifying the concern about preventive measures, he also pointed out that the court cannot direct the legislation in that regard. The court also observes that these days the hospitals are equipped with security or police officers to stop such incidents from happening, which the Council of the Petitioners, Senior Advocate Hansaria, opposes as he mentions that not all hospitals have such apparatus, especially in rural areas.

On 5th September 2022, while hearing the said petition, the Supreme Court took this stance that there are a large number of private hospitals and nursing homes which actually function as business enterprises, and thus the Central and State governments are not expected to provide security. They must make their own security arrangements, and so far as government hospitals are concerned, security is arranged by the concerned hospitals. While disposing of the petition, the top court has suggested moving to the appropriate forum regarding any particular instance of violence.

Conclusion:

To conclude, the pandemic and current crisis have pinpointed the issues of violence against healthcare professionals. The apex court held that the laws are already existing and only proper implementation is needed. Also, framing new enactments is the duty of the legislature. Again, initiatives are being taken as the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare has proposed to introduce 'Medical Professionals Act' in 2023 in this regard. [5]

References:

 

 

78 views1 comment

1 Comment

HariPriya Epuri
HariPriya Epuri
Jul 25

Very well written article sayak, keep writing more 🙌

Like
bottom of page