Don't politicise RG Kar rape and murder: Supreme Court on statements made by TMC, BJP leaders

The Supreme Court on Thursday urged political parties and government not to politicise the August 9 rape and murder of a resident doctor at RG Kar Medical College and Hospital in Kolkata [In Re: Alleged Rape and Murder Incident of a Trainee Doctor in RG Kar Medical College and Hospital, Kolkata and Related Issues].A Bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud with Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra took exception to the Central Bureau of Investigation and State of West Bengal trading barbs in court over statements made by leaders from Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and Trinamool Congress (TMC). "A sitting minister of the State of West Bengal says fingers pointing towards Mamata Banerjee will be chopped off," Solicitor General (SG) Tushar Mehta said on behalf of CBI.Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for West Bengal government, retorted by saying,"And leader of opposition Suvendu Adhikari has said bullets will be fired." "Do not politicise the situation. Law will take its course," the Court said. The Court also said that it is concerned with safety and welfare of doctors and we will pass enforceable directions and not just guidelines. Therefore, it ordered that no coercive action should be taken against the doctors across India who took part in protests against the incidentHowever, the Court also urged doctors to immediately resume their duties so that needy patients who may need public health services, do not suffer."An apprehension has been expressed by the doctors that some of them are being proceeded against with respect to protests that happened in past. We have been assured that doctors will return back to work and let there be no coercive action be taken against doctors after they come back to work after the date of today's order. No adverse action against doctor after they resume work for any protest that happened before the date of today's order," the Court said.The Court said that judges and doctors cannot go on strike since they deal with matters involving life and liberty."Justice and medicine cannot go on strike. Can we (judges) go and sit outside the Supreme Court now," the Bench asked.The Delhi Medical Association told the Court that First Information Reports (FIRs) have been registered against certain doctors from All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) who protested."How long have you been protesting," the Court queried. "Since the day of incident," the counsel replied."Then 13 days AIIMS doctors are not working.. please get to work... we have ensure no coercive action provided no protest after the date of today's order," the Court assured..BackgroundThe Court was hearing the suo motu case registered by it in relation to the incident.Various associations and bodies of medical professionals have filed intervention applications before the apex court seeking directions in the matter.The doctor was found dead at a seminar hall of the college on August 9. An autopsy confirmed that she was raped and murdered.The incident has sparked nationwide outrage and protests with doctors in various parts of the country going on strike demanding stricter laws and policing to ensure the safety of medical professionals.The matter is currently being probe by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) after the Calcutta High Court transferred the probe to the central agency.Subsequently, the top court initiated the suo motu case.During the previous hearing of the matter, the top court had issued several directives including the establishment of a National Task Force (NTF) to examine the issues concerning safety and dignity of doctors and medical professionals and to address gender based violence and other issues concerning well being and safety faced by doctors and other medical professionals at workplace.The Court had also directed the CBI to submit a status report on the progress of investigation into the case.It had also ordered the State of West Bengal to file a status report on the progress of probe into the acts of vandalism which took place at the hospital and its premises in aftermath of the crime..Hearing todayDuring the hearing today, Resident Doctors of AIIMS at Nagpur mentioned that they were being victimised on account of their protests and were not being allowed to write exams. "If they are on duty they will not be marked absent and if they are not on duty then law will be followed. ask them to first return to work. No one will take adverse action against any doctor. If there is difficulty after that then come to us. But let them first report to work," the CJI said."They have now reported back to work," the lawyer for the doctors replied.Similar concern was raised by doctors from Chandigarh. "Doctors are being victimised. They rally one hour in morning and then they are working.. but they are also..." it was submitted. "The seasoned directors who helm these institutions will never do something like this," the CJI remarked. "Their casual leaves are being deducted," the counsel submitted. "Once they get back to duty we will prevail upon authorities to not take adverse action, else how will public health infrastructure run if the doctors do not work," the CJI said. "An assurance from this court should satisfy the doctors," Solicitor General Tushar Mehta weighed in.The CJI assured that while every association of body of doctors cannot be made a part of the National Task Force, "The reason for this broad based National Task Force is that all stakeholders will be consulted including the resident doctors. So they will be heard. If we start asking representatives of various stakeholders to be part of committee then work of the committee gets dislocated. We know that the committee has senior women doctors and they have dedicated life to public health infrastructure. The committee will hear everyone - interns, residents, senior residents, nurses, paramedical staff. Committee will ensure that all representatives are heard," the CJI assured.Senior Advocate Devadatt Kamat appearing for close to 30,000 resident doctors said that they should be heard as well.The CJI assured that the task force will hear them."Please assure the resident doctors that they will be heard by the committee," the CJI said.The CJI also noted that there were many intervention applications before the Court seeking various directions.Therefore, he suggested that, "If all of you are intervening for various bodies can give a slip of names and the body being represented.. Then we will put the same in order and we will say committee may take steps to engage with all these bodies.".Senior Advocate Vijay Hansaria, appearing for Delhi Medical Association, suggested that there should be a grievance redressal number for doctors."There should be institutional FIR within 2 hours of a crime, there should be grievance redressal number, then expediting of such similar matters involving attack on doctors," he said.The CJI then recounted his own experience of having had to sleep on the floor of a government hospital and also flagged how doctors are many times forced to work continuously for 36 hours."Please assure the doctors that we know they are working for 36 hours..I have personally slept on the floor of a public hospital when one my family member was not well. If you look at our order (of August 20).. we have in fact highlighted the same aspect.. that there is a hierarchical nature of public hospitals and junior doctors are susceptible to different kinds of harassment and not just sexual harassment. We have got so many emails and we have been flooded. 48 or 36 hours of duty is not good," the CJI said..Senior Advocate Geeta Luthra appearing for junior resident doctors at RG Kar said that they were being threatened."I appear for the RG Kar Junior resident doctors.. they are being threatened by members of administration, people in the hospital," she said.Senior Advocate Karuna Nundy also weighed in stating,"Yes, I appear for doctors in Kolkata. There are goons," she said."This is serious then, give us the names. We will take note of this," the CJI replied.She also said that she need to address the Court on the special investigation team (SIT) set up by the West Bengal government."We represent 5 association of doctors. There is institutional compromise with regard to financial issues and the rape incident as well. We need to address on SIT as well. An SIT was set up by the West Bengal govt to look into these irregularities as well," Nundy submitted..Both the CBI and the West Bengal government handed over their status reports. While the CBI was asked by the Court to file a report on the progress of the investigation into the rape and murder, the State was asked to file a report on the progress of probe into the acts of vandalism which took place at the hospital and its premises in aftermath of the crime.Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for CBI, said that the central agency was handed over the probe by the High Court in the fifth day after the crime and the crime scene was already altered by then..After examining the reports, the CJI flagged the delay in demarcation of the crime scene."One aspect is very disturbing. The unnatural death entry was made at 10:10 am. The Police was informed then that it was an unnatural death and disregarding all this, the demarcation of crime scene etc happened in the night," he asked.Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for State of West Bengal, denied the same."No no no, I have given a timeline which is backed by videography," he said. "Give us also," said SG Mehta."Yes we will," Sibal said. "We should not request, you are bound to give this to CBI," Mehta stated.The Court then proceeded to grill the State on the timeline of events, particularly the time of registration of Unnatural Death Case Report (UD report) and the time of autopsy/ post-mortem of the body."When you took the dead body for post-mortem then was it a case of unnatural death or not. If it was not unnatural death, then what was the need of PM. When you start doing post-mortem then, it is a case of unnatural death. UD case of 861 of 2024 as registered on 23:30 hours and FIR was registered at 23:45. Is this record correct," Justice Pardiwala asked."UD was registered at 1:45 pm," Sibal replied"How do we reconcile these two reports. Postmortem precedes registration of UD.. This is surprising. Please speak to some officers, if this is the fact then this is. Please make a responsible statement. do not make a rash statement," the Bench said.Sibal maintained that UD report was registered at 1.45 pm on the day of the crime."From where do you get this, show us. Please keep a responsible police officer present here. We have yet not got an answer as to when was UD case registered," the Bench said."Page 2 of the case diary," Sibal replied."Ok tell us when was the inquest panchama done," the Court asked. "4:20 to 4:40 pm," Sibal stated. "Report in our hand reveals that UD case registered after inquest panchnama and post mortem," the Bench said."No, if you see magistrate report.. UD time is mentioned," Sibal replied."The procedure followed in criminal law by the police is not something CRPC follows or I have seen in my 30 years. so is it true that post mortem was after UD report," Justice Pardiwala persisted..He also said that the conduct of the Assistant Superintendent of Police was doubtful."Who is the assistant superintendent of police. Her conduct is also very doubtful. Why did she act in this manner?" The CJI then tried to trace the timeline based on case diary"Now see in your document.. GD entry is at 5:20 am, received info from the hospital that the lady was lying in half naked condition at 10:10 am, Medical board opined there is possibility of forceful sexual penetration. and GD entry shows the cordoning of area is after the post mortem. Then magistrate conducted inquest over the dead body under videography... Then incriminating material found under the mattress.. The on duty RMO was examined," CJI remarked.Hence, he said that it was clear that the UD case report was registered at 11.30 pm. "See it is clear that UD case was registered at 11:30 pm after the officer comes back to police station. This is after the post mortem. This is a case diary! It is clear now," the CJI said."Page 2.. please see page 2.. second last para of case diary," Sibal insisted."Let the CBI look into this. It looks like this has been inserted later," said Justice Pardiwala.Sibal then highlighted the report of Chief Judicial Magistrate."Report of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (ACJM) can come. Please read the inquest report you. This is the judicial magistrate who carried out the inquest. Post mortem is also mentioned. This cannot be inserted. This is signed by the magistrate," he said.He maintained that the UD report was registered before the autopsy."The Post mortem report, the seizure list all has the UD case report time and number. Even the inquest report has it. All in case diary. All before 8:30 pm.. then how can (it be) at 11 :30 pm. Original CD also given to CBI," he said.The SG said that the UD was at 11.30 pm."Please see, UD was actually at 11:30 pm," he stated.Sibal contested the same."No, no..show the video CD then," Sibal argued."Please read the general diary entry... come to the next page.. after return to police station, a UD case has been registered at 11:30 pm earlier was only a GD entry.. that is the chronology," the SG contended. "This is all just muddying the waters and that is what you are doing," Sibal responded.The matter was eventually put to rest after it was shown that the post mortem report itself mentioned the UD report."Show us the post mortem report..is UD 861 mentioned?" Pardiwala asked."In the first line," Sibal pointed out."It appears then, that at the time when the postmortem was conducted, UD 861 had already been recorded," the CJI remarked after examining the post mortem report. "That is right. There is no doubt about it. People are using some expressions ... the record will show," Sibal vehemently submitted."Why does IO then say, 'after I returned to the police station in the night, I recorded-'," the CJI then asked. "Because he has to record what has happened all this while. That's the point," Sibal said. .The Court also turned down an argument that 151 gram of semen was recovered from the body of the vicitm."Lordships, (it is said) the PMR (post mortem report) talks about 151 mg of semen, it is in ML-" a lawyer said. The CJI made it clear that arguments should not be made based on social media posts."Don't confuse this. Don't use social media to make arguments in the court. We have specifically now the post mortem report before us. We know what that 151 refers to. Let's not use what we read on media and make legal arguments on that basis," the CJI said..Read live coverage of hearing here..[Read Order].[Live Tweets from hearing below]