As strikes end, SC defers hearing on doctors safety

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Tuesday said that the security of the doctors could not be at the expense of others as it favoured taking a holistic view of the policing including that of the law and order.

Deferring the hearing on the plea seeking police protection for the doctors  in view of the withdrawal of agitation, the vacation bench of Justice Deepak Gupta and  Justice Surya Kant kept open the larger issue of security of the doctors and the framing of guidelines.

Keeping open the larger issue of protection of doctors, Justice Gupta said that they had directed the listing of the matter today but since doctors have withdrawn strike in West Bengal and other States there was no urgency to hear the matter now.

“When this matter was mentioned on Monday, we had directed to list it on Tuesday because the strike by the medical fraternity in West Bengal and in some other states was continuing. However, the strike has been called off. Therefore, we find no urgency to take up the matter now,” the bench said in its order.

The strike by the medical fraternity across the country was sparked after attack on junior doctors at of Kolkata’s NRS Medical College and Hospital.

Despite PIL petitioner lawyer Alakh Alok Srivastava urging the court to ask the Centre to respond to the issue of providing protection to doctors in government hospitals, the court refused to issue notice saying that the matter be listed before an appropriate bench post vacation.

Observing that extending protection to doctors was a serious issue, Justice Gupta said, “Can we order state to provide police security to doctors. We can’t protect doctors at the expense of others. What kind of security has to be given, who will provide the security including the deployment of police for the law and order. We have to take a holistic view.”

The counsel for the Indian Medical Association sought to be impleaded in the matter told the court on the need for a central legislation to address the issue. He said that some States had laws but not all. PIL petitioner Srivastava had contended that the doctors in government hospitals were working in an “extremely adverse circumstances”.