SUPREME COURT DIRECTIONS TO ENSURE SAFETY OF HEALTHCARE WORKERS
Case Title – ALLEGED RAPE AND MURDER INCIDENT OF A TRAINEE DOCTOR IN R.G. KAR MEDICAL COLLEGE AND HOSPITAL, KOLKATA AND RELATED ISSUES
After recent rape and murder of the kolkata doctor, Supreme Court constituted National Task Force for making report of recommendations which have all the guidelines to be followed all over the country for safety of medical professionals also directed Union ministry of Family Welfare and Health to make redressal portal on ministry so that different stakeholders can make suggestions.
Legal Provisions and Framework:
- Suo Motu Jurisdiction: The term Sou Moto means that the Supreme Court has the power to take up cases on its own motion (suo motu) under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, specifically in matters related to the fundamental rights.
- Article 21 (Right to Life): This article states about the emphaises about the protection of life and liberty and safety of a person which also includes medical professionals, which falls under the scope of Article 21.
- National Task Force (NTF): The NTF was established by the Supreme Court to focus on systemic issues in the safety of medical professionals, eaddressing the State’s responsibility under Article 47 of the Directive Principles of State Policy.
|
Source – Supreme Court of India
SUPREME COURT ORDERED STATES BODIES TO FOLLOW NGT DIRECTIONS
Case Name – PARUN PRASAD vs. UNION OF INDIA
Recently, the Supreme Court has ordered state machineries to follow the National Green Tribunal orders regarding environment protection diligently.
This order came when Chhattisgarh environment protection board failed to ensure timely compliance with NGT direction regarding directions for regular check on pollution control measures.
Legal Provisions and Framework:
- National Green Tribunal Act, 2010: As per the Section 26 of the NGT Act the penal action can be taken against individuals or entities for non-compliance with NGT orders. Though, the Supreme Court addresses that the power must be exercised with due care and caution.
- Environmental Protection: The case states about the compliance in regards to the Water (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, and the Air (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1981, which directs the pollution control measures and real-time monitoring by State Pollution Control Boards.
- Judicial Review: The Supreme Court’s rulling directs that lower tribunals and authorities do not cross their legal boundaries, specifically when there has been substantial compliance.
|
Source – Supreme Court of India
SUPREME COURT QUASHED CRIMINAL CASE WHICH WAS UNDER NON PERFORMANCE OF AGREEMENT
Case Name – Radheyshyam & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Anr
Supreme Court on a recent case quashed FIR againish three individuals charged for cheating and breach of trust in property sell case. The court said that non performance of the agreement of sell doesn’t account for criminal offence. The complainant’s FIR was against the defendant to threaten to perform the contract and extract money from them.
Legal Provisions and Framework:
- Indian Penal Code (IPC): The FIR was lodged as per the Sections 420 (cheating) and 406 (criminal breach of trust) of the Indian Penal Code (now BNS). The Supreme Court ensured that mere non-performance of an agreement to sell does not satisfy the legal requirements to constitute these offenses.
- Civil vs. Criminal Law: The Court addressed the distinction between civil wrongs and criminal offenses. The complainant has the civil remedy of seeking specific performance under the Specific Relief Act, 1963.
- Abuse of Criminal Process: The ruling underscores the misuse of criminal proceedings to settle civil disputes, a principle upheld in various precedents like State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992).
|
Source Supreme Court of India
Also Read– DAILY CURRENT AFFAIRS (21 AUGUST 2024)
