Doctors & Lawyers Should Not Resort To Strike: Rajasthan HC Urges Resident Doctors To Call Off Strike
The Rajasthan High Court, while observing that doctors and lawyers are not expected to resort to strike, has urged the resident doctors of JARD to call off their strike as it allegedly created a “dismaying situation that the general public.”
The Court allowed a petition under Section 528 of the BNSS that highlighted the issues the general public was facing due to the ongoing strike by the doctors and allied staff of medical therapeutics regarding the safety and protection of the doctors, especially the female doctors. The Court Commissioners also reported “melancholy at the hospital” due to the absence of critical staff, noting “severe hardships” faced by OPD and the need to postpone certain operations due to the strike.
A Single Bench of Justice Sameer Jain observed, “Considering the submissions made insofar and scanning the judgments cited at the Bar this Court expects that the doctors and lawyers should not resort to strike. Moreover, the same is even provided in the Code of Ethics for Doctors prescribed in Regulations of 2002, it also provides duties and responsibilities of the transmission in general and to their patients. The patients must not been neglected; duties of doctors and the para-medical staff; unethical acts; human rights misconduct etc. reading of ethics also makes it clear that the strike cannot be resorted to by the members of such a noble profession. This Court further believes that it is the moral, social, professional duty of the Doctors who are under oath (Hippocratic Oath), to not make any innocent suffer.”
The petitioner appeared in person, while AAG G.S. Gill represented the respondent.
A newspaper report by the Indian Express reported that the strike, involving doctors affiliated with the Jaipur Association of Resident Doctors (JARD), led to the postponement of hundreds of surgeries, disrupted Outpatient Department (OPD) services, and halted regular consultations, causing concern amid a surge in seasonal diseases.
The petition pointed out that the doctors’ decision to strike impeded patients' rights under Article 21 and Article 14 of the Constitution. It also noted the critical timing of the strike, as many patients affected by seasonal diseases, including malaria, dengue, and viral fevers, needed medical care. The petition further invoked Section 125 of the Bhartiya Nayaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, which specifies penalties for acts that endanger the safety of others.
In discussions with JARD representatives, it was pointed out that the doctors were driven to strike due to unresolved issues related to safety, stipends, and other policy matters. The doctors reported repeated attempts to address these issues with higher authorities, including concerns over safety provisions for female doctors and a lack of adequate allowances. Despite grievances, the doctors expressed their willingness to end the strike should their issues be addressed adequately.
In parallel, the Secretary of Medical Education confirmed that prior negotiations had been held with resident doctors to address their concerns. The medical department emphasized its position against strikes, noting that the protest “affects the lives of patients” and causes “pressure upon the manpower working in place of the Resident Doctors.”
After reviewing the case, the Court directed the formation of an internal committee to address doctors’ grievances while emphasizing the need to resume services immediately. “The Secretary, Medical Education has assured that the aforestated committee shall be formulated without further ado, and the same shall have appropriate representation of the aggrieved Resident Doctors. Moreover, the primary motive of the said committee shall be to tender appropriate and lawful audience to the aggrieved and resolve their hitches,” it remarked.
“This Court after considering the aforementioned has foremost urged the Resident Doctors to call-off their strike and request their fellow doctors to rejoin their duties. The same is accepted by the doctors representing JARD,” the Court stated.
“Secretary as a Chairman of the committee will be at liberty to pass any interim decision, considering the writ large effect and interest of the general public. Additionally, while passing the said, the grievances and plea of the Resident Doctors shall also be considered,” the Bench stated.
Accordingly, the High Court listed the matter for further hearing on November 21, 2024.
Cause Title: Parth Sharma v. State Of Rajasthan
Appearance:
Petitioner: Amici Curiae Suresh Kumar Sahini, S.S. Hora and Kapil Gupta; Court Commissioners Ajay Shukla and Shobit Tiwari
Respondent: AAG G.S. Gill, Rajesh Choudhary and Vigyan Shah; AGC Yash Joshi and Archit Bohra; Addl. G.C. Pulkit Bhardwaj; PP Manvendra Singh Shekhawat and Rishi Raj Singh Rathore
