Junior Doctors’ Protest Continues For Fourth Day Over Doctor’s Death

The ongoing protest by junior doctors in front of the West Bengal Health Department headquarters in Salt Lake entered its fourth day on Friday. The recent rape and murder of a doctor at RG Kar Medical College & Hospital sparked the demonstration, and the doctors pledge to continue their dharna indefinitely until they meet their demands.

The planned discussion with Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee at the state secretariat Nabanna on Thursday did not materialize as expected. The administration rejected the doctors’ demand for a live broadcast of the meeting, leading the 30-member delegation to return to their protest site and reaffirm their commitment to the ongoing demonstration.

Also Read: CPI-M To Elect New General Secretary Amidst Historic Transition

The protest began on Tuesday afternoon and has persisted since. On Thursday morning, the doctors reiterated that they would only enter into discussions if their four conditions are met. These conditions include allowing a delegation of 30 representatives, holding a meeting with Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee, broadcasting the meeting live for transparency, and focusing on the five-point agenda they initially outlined.

Key Demands

Key demands in this agenda include the suspension of the state health secretary, state director of health services, and the director of medical education.

As the Supreme Court prepares for a hearing on September 17, the West Bengal government’s counsel may argue whether the ongoing protests constitute contempt of court. During a hearing on September 9, the Supreme Court stated that it would not intervene in any state government action against the junior doctors if they did not resume duty by 5 P.M. on September 10.

Legal experts suggest that the argument of contempt might not hold up in court. According to Kaushik Gupta, a senior counsel at the Calcutta High Court, the Supreme Court’s observation was not a direct order for the junior doctors to return to duty by the specified deadline. Instead, it indicated that the court would not interfere with state actions if the doctors did not comply.

Gupta noted, “The Supreme Court’s comments suggest that the responsibility now lies with the state government to determine how to handle the situation and encourage the junior doctors to resume their duties. The argument of contempt of court is unlikely to apply in this context.”