Rajasthan High Court: In a petition challenging the strike by resident doctors from Jaipur’s S.M.S. Hospital and other affiliated hospitals in Rajasthan on the ground that it endangers public health and thereby, violating Article 21 of the Constitution of India, a single-judge bench of Sameer Jain, J., directed an immediate end to the doctors’ strike, recognising the public health impact.
On 19-10-2024, 7,000 resident doctors from Jaipur’s S.M.S. Hospital and other affiliated hospitals in Rajasthan went on strike under the Jaipur Association of Resident Doctors (JARD). This strike severely affected healthcare services, causing the postponement of over 100 surgeries, halted consultations, and limited OPD services, leaving numerous patients without essential care, particularly amid a seasonal rise in cases of malaria, dengue, and viral fever. The strike was fueled by grievances related to doctors’ safety, inadequate stipends, and inadequate accommodations.
The main issues in the present matter are —
-
Whether the strike by resident doctors constitutes a violation of the public’s right to life and health under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India?
-
Whether the doctors’ strike is legally permissible considering the Essential Services Maintenance Act, 1981, and the Rajasthan Essential Services Maintenance Act, 1970?
-
Whether the grievances raised by JARD justify the strike and if a solution can be reached through mediation?
The petitioner argued that the doctors’ strike endangers public health, violating Article 21 and affecting the state’s obligations under the Directive Principles of State Policy. The petitioner cited T.K. Rangarajan v. Government of T.N., (2003) 6 SCC 581, to emphasize that professionals in critical fields like healthcare do not possess an equitable or legal right to strike. However, the respondent contended that the doctors highlighted ongoing issues of safety, especially for female doctors, minimal stipends, and inadequate housing, which has been consistently ignored by hospital authorities. They expressed a willingness to end the strike if a resolution mechanism could be established.
The Court recognised the urgent need for healthcare services and directed the doctors to end the strike immediately in the interest of public health. The Court directed the
-
Formation of an internal grievance redressal committee, chaired by the Secretary of Medical Education, included representatives from JARD and other medical and administrative officials, to address the grievances of resident doctors. The committee is to meet by 26-10-2024, with representatives from JARD and senior medical officials. Its findings are expected within 21 days.
-
all actions against the striking doctors be held in abeyance until the next date of hearing on 21-11-2024.
[Parth Sharma v. State of Rajasthan, 2024 SCC OnLine Raj 3347, Decided on 21-10-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Mr. Suresh Kumar Sahini, Amicus Curaie; Mr. S.S. Hora, Amicus Curaie; Mr. Kapil Gupta, Amicus Curaie; Mr. Ajay Shukla, Court Commissioner and Mr. Shobit Tiwari, Court Commissioner, Counsel for the Petitioner
Mr. G.S. Gill, AAG; Mr. Vigyan Shah, AAG; Mr. Yash Joshi; Mr. Archit Bohra, AGC; Mr. Pulkit Bhardwaj, Addl. G.C.; Mr. Rajesh Choudhary, GA-cum-AAG; Mr. Manvendra Singh Shekhawat; Mr. Rishi Raj Singh Rathore, PP; Ms. Gayatri Rathore, Principal Secretary; Mr. Iqbal Khan, Commissioner Medical Education; Mr. Amrish Kumar, Secretary Medical Education; Dr. Manohar Siyal; Dr. Saket Dhadhich and Mr. Sudhir Upadhyay, SHO, SMS Hospital, Counsel for the Respondent
Buy Constitution of India HERE
