Violence against Doctors: Supreme Court junks DMA's plea seeking central guidelines, compensation scheme

New Delhi: The plea by the Delhi Medical Association (DMA) seeking directions and relief in cases of violence against the doctors, was dismissed by the Supreme Court today.

Refusing to entertain the plea filed under Article 32 of the Constitution, the Apex Court bench comprising Justices Sanjiv Khanna, Sanjay Karol and Sanjay Kumar ordered, "We are not inclined to entertain the present writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. In case there is any difficulty or issue in this particular case, the Association of Doctors can take up the issue before the competent jurisdiction."

During the hearing, the Court observed that the legal provisions to punish those indulging in violence are already there and the only issue is regarding its implementation. Therefore, the bench clarified that it could not issue any mandamus and dismissed the plea.

Medical Dialogues had reported back in 2021 that DMA had approached the Apex Court seeking a preventive, punitive, and compensation mechanism for adequate safety measures for the Healthcare Professionals including Doctors, Nurses, Para-medical, medical, and nursing students.

Pointing out that none of the present state/UT legislations has laid down any preventive measures and set up authorities in place to prevent assaults against the healthcare workers at their workplace, the Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed under Article 32 had sought the following directions-

(1) Appropriate directions to the Government and concerned authorities ensure proper and effective security system (24/7) to be installed in all the hospitals, nursing homes, medical centres, healthcare facilities, clinical and other such establishments for taking immediate action against the miscreants whenever any such incident of assault occurs and also to prevent such incidents.

(2) Directions upon the Health departments of all the States and Union Territories to issue circular/notification to have a banner/ notice board/ poster displaying the information related to the punishment and fine under the appropriate legislation, both in vernacular & English language.

(3) Issue Directions upon both the Central and State Governments to have a distress fund to grant adequate and mandatory compensation to the victim or the family of the deceased of the Healthcare workers as a result of such kind of violence/assault.

(4) Direct Government to declare every hospital, primary health care centres or tertiary and even diagnostic and pathological clinics and other such medical centres and such establishments as a protected zone to ensure and enhance security system, so that the facilities remain secured against weapons (especially firearms and knives) being brought in those establishments.

(5) Formulate a mechanism to ensure quick hearing and speedy trials of such kind of violence, assault cases against Medicare Service Personals.

(6) Guidelines to evolve an effective balanced rescue mechanism system for both the health workers & the patients (in the form of help desk ) in every healthcare/ clinical establishment and facilities to intervene immediately to address the problem/ dispute so as to prevent any unavoidable dispute or disturbances resulting to such kind of assault, violence or public lynching.

Also Read: Violence against Doctors: DMA reaches Supreme Court seeking central guidelines, compensation scheme

However, today, during the hearing of the matter, the court observed that the rules and legal provisions to punish those indulging in violence are already there. In this regard, Justice Khanna was quoted remarking by Verdictum, "I went to the hospital recently and saw placards placed there saying violence against doctors is a serious offence."

Responding to this, the counsel for DMA, Senior Advocate Vijay Hansaria submitted, "What I am submitting, for your consideration, that after any incidents happen, individual cases are filed and action is taken. The question is what preventive measures and precautionary measures are being taken..."

At this outset, Justice Khanna clarified, "We cannot direct legislation."

The counsel for DMA argued that if the legislation is already there, the court could fill the gaps. However, responding to this suggestion, Justice Khanna replied, "No no sorry."

"The Legislation does not cater to the requirement...I know Lorships would not direct Legislation, legislation for conviction is there," submitted the DMA's counsel.

In response, Justice Khanna observed, "The Law is already in place because anybody who indulges in violence will be treated in accordance with the provisions of the IPC...The only question is of implementation. The Court cannot issue mandamus."