Author – Adv. Satyam Singh Rajput
Supreme Court of India
As legal counsel representing medical professionals in landmark cases including the RG Kar rape-murder tragedy, NEET-PG single shift litigation, and resident working hours disputes, I witness firsthand a disturbing pattern: India’s healthcare heroes are compelled to abandon their stethoscopes for legal briefs, trading patient care for courtroom advocacy.
The stethoscope has been replaced by legal briefs, and the operating table by courtroom benches. When those who dedicate their lives to healing are forced to become litigants in their own quest for basic human dignity, it signals a profound failure of our healthcare governance system.
In my years of practice before the Supreme Court, I have observed a troubling phenomenon that strikes at the very heart of our healthcare system. Time and again, medical professionals—those who dedicate their lives to healing others—find themselves forced to seek justice through the corridors of our courts rather than receiving institutional support and protection.
As I stand before the Supreme Court of India, representing doctors in landmark cases ranging from the horrific RG Kar rape and murder incident to the NEET PG single shift controversy and the ongoing battle for humane working hours for resident doctors, I am compelled to ask: Why have our healers become perpetual petitioners in the halls of justice?
The Anatomy of Administrative Apathy
The pattern is as predictable as it is disturbing. A crisis emerges—whether it’s the brutal assault on a trainee doctor at RG Kar Medical College, the chaotic implementation of NEET PG examinations, or the inhuman working conditions that push residents to their breaking point. The response from authorities follows a familiar script: initial denial, token gestures, and ultimately, institutional amnesia.
“When the system fails to protect those who protect us, the courthouse becomes their sanctuary,” I often tell my clients. This is not hyperbole—it is the harsh reality of medical practice in India today.
The RG Kar Revelation: When Safety Becomes a Legal Battle
The rape and murder of a trainee doctor at RG Kar Medical College was not an isolated incident but a symptom of a deeper malaise. The case I fought revealed systemic failures that go beyond individual criminal culpability. When basic safety measures—adequate lighting, security protocols, safe rest areas—become matters for judicial intervention rather than administrative priority, we witness the complete breakdown of institutional responsibility.
“Justice delayed is justice denied, but for doctors, institutional indifference is dignity destroyed,” I believe. The fact that we needed a Supreme Court intervention to ensure basic safety measures in medical institutions speaks volumes about our administrative priorities.
NEET PG Single Shift: The Examination of Incompetence
The NEET PG single shift case exemplifies how policy inconsistency creates chaos in medical education. When exam patterns change arbitrarily, when transparency becomes a casualty of bureaucratic whims, and when the future of medical professionals hangs in the balance of administrative convenience, the judiciary becomes the last resort for rational decision-making.
“The court should not become a correction facility for administrative failures,” I emphasized in my pleadings. Yet, here we are, repeatedly seeking judicial intervention for what should be routine policy implementation.
The Resident Working Hours Saga: Humanity on Trial
Perhaps no issue better illustrates the systemic callousness than the battle for reasonable working hours for resident doctors. The fact that we need court orders to ensure that doctors—human beings who are expected to save lives—are not worked to death themselves is a damning indictment of our healthcare administration.
“A tired doctor is a dangerous doctor, and a dangerous doctor is a threat to public health,” I emphasis. The irony is stark: those entrusted with healing are denied basic human considerations that every other profession takes for granted.
The Judicial Burden: Courts as Administrative Firefighters
The Supreme Court and High Courts across India have become de facto administrators of the healthcare system. From ensuring safety in medical colleges to regulating examination patterns, from mandating reasonable working hours to investigating institutional failures, the judiciary is constantly called upon to perform functions that should be the domain of executive governance.
“When courts become the primary recourse for professional dignity, it indicates a fundamental failure of democratic governance,” I often observe. The judiciary, while capable and willing, should not be the first responder to every administrative crisis.
The Systemic Rot: Beyond Individual Cases
Each case I fight—RG Kar, NEET PG, working hours—represents a facet of a larger systemic problem. Medical education authorities lack accountability, hospital administrations prioritize profit over safety, and government policies are implemented without stakeholder consultation. The result is a healthcare system that fails both providers and patients.
“The doctor-patient relationship is sacred, but it cannot flourish in an ecosystem of institutional neglect,” I maintain. When doctors are constantly fighting for basic rights and dignity, their ability to focus on patient care is inevitably compromised.
The Constitutional Imperative: Right to Dignity
At its core, the repeated judicial interventions in medical affairs represent a struggle for constitutional rights. The right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 extends to medical professionals. The right to equality under Article 14 means that doctors cannot be subjected to discriminatory treatment in their professional lives.
“The Constitution is not a document for selective application—it protects the doctor in the emergency room as much as the patient on the stretcher,” I argue. Every petition we file is ultimately a plea for constitutional values to be respected in medical practice.
The Path Forward: Institutional Reform, Not Judicial Dependence
The solution is not more litigation but less need for it. We need:
Proactive Governance: Medical authorities must anticipate problems rather than react to crises. Policy formulation should involve genuine stakeholder consultation, not bureaucratic isolation.
Accountability Mechanisms: Clear lines of responsibility and consequences for institutional failures. When safety lapses occur, when policies fail, when working conditions deteriorate, there must be identifiable accountability.
Regulatory Transparency: Decision-making processes in medical education and healthcare administration must be transparent, predictable, and fair. Arbitrary changes that affect thousands of medical professionals should be subject to rigorous scrutiny.
Dignity in Practice: The recognition that medical professionals, like all humans, deserve basic dignity, safety, and reasonable working conditions. This should not require judicial intervention to achieve.
The Prescription for Change
“A nation that fails to protect its healers fails to protect its own future,” I always believe . The repeated need for judicial intervention in medical affairs is not a sign of judicial activism but of administrative abdication.
As I continue to fight these battles in courtrooms across the country, I am reminded that each case represents not just individual grievances but collective aspirations for a healthcare system that respects both providers and patients. The doctor who approaches the court is not seeking privilege but basic human dignity.
The question is not why doctors go to court repeatedly, but why they have to. Until we address the systemic failures that make litigation inevitable, the courthouse will remain the unfortunate sanctuary for those whose only crime was choosing to heal.
“In the end, justice for doctors is justice for healthcare, and justice for healthcare is justice for humanity itself.”
Advocate Satyam Singh Rajput practices before the Supreme Court of India and specializes in medical law and healthcare policy. He is currently representing doctors in several landmark cases related to professional rights and safety.