Press reports not enough to take judicial action: Delhi High Court refuses to entertain PIL for action against doctors' strike

The Delhi High Court on Friday refused to entertain a public interest litigation (PIL) petition seeking disciplinary action against doctors who go on strike..A Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Sachin Datta observed that the petitioner had only relied on a few news reports which are not sufficient to take judicial action.The body against whom action is sought to be taken is not defined or identified, the Court added. .The plea was filed by an organisation, People for Better Treatment (PBT) through advocate Sachin Jain.It argued that frequent ‘doctors’ strike’ were causing enormous pain and suffering to patients and was in resulting in deaths of people requiring immediate treatment.Therefore, the plea said that the National Medical Commission should be directed to take disciplinary action against doctors.It also sought a direction to adopt stringent and necessary measures to prevent doctors’ strike in future and widely publicise that if they go on strike, action will be taken against them..The bench agreed that there is no doubt that the strike by doctors or people involved in professions servicing the public at large greatly affects them and that in case of doctors, the impact would be more grave as it may put the lives of people in jeopardy.However, it said that the petitioners’ case is founded only on news reports and no other material has been placed on record to show the strike affecting people, the nature of suffering undergone and whether it has resulted in any loss of lives.“In our view before any action can be taken, it would be necessary for the complainant to first approach the state medical council to make out the specific grievance based on actual errors since it would be for the council to take action against identified doctors who may have gone on strike,” the Court said in its order.The judges added,“Reliance placed on mere press reports is not sufficient to take judicial action since the body against whom the action is called for is not defined and identified.”.The Court, therefore, disposed of the plea asking the petitioners to approach the specific medical councils with complaints about actual patients suffering on account of strikes that may have taken place in a hospital.