Why Did Calcutta HC Stop the Government from Acting Against a Doctor Protesting His Transfer?
Click to start listening
Synopsis
In a significant ruling, the Calcutta High Court has intervened to protect a senior resident doctor from government retaliation following his challenge against an unjust transfer. This case highlights the ongoing struggle for justice within the medical community in West Bengal amidst a backdrop of tragedy.
Key Takeaways
- Calcutta High Court intervenes to protect a doctor from government actions.
- The transfer was labeled as arbitrary and unjust.
- Justice Basu emphasized the need for government discretion.
- The case reflects ongoing tensions within the medical community.
- The situation underscores the importance of accountability.
Kolkata, July 30 (NationPress) A single-judge Bench of the Calcutta High Court has prohibited the West Bengal government from initiating any administrative or disciplinary measures against a senior resident doctor who challenged his 'unjust' transfer to a distant location in the state. The doctor, Aniket Mahato, has been a prominent advocate for justice following the horrific rape and murder of a junior doctor at R.G. Kar Medical College & Hospital in Kolkata last August. He recently filed a petition with the Calcutta High Court contesting his transfer executed by the state health department.
The case was presented before Justice Biswajit Basu on Wednesday, who ultimately ruled that the state government must refrain from taking any punitive actions against Mahato while the case is pending. The Bench also rejected the government's request to transfer the proceedings to the State Administrative Tribunal (SAT).
The West Bengal government's argument was that, since it funds the stipends for senior resident doctors, the case should be addressed at the SAT. However, Justice Basu dismissed this claim, asserting that the matter would remain under his jurisdiction.
Mahato argued that as a post-graduate student in medical science, his role as a senior resident doctor is contractual rather than permanent, and therefore does not fall under the obligations of permanent employment.
Justice Basu also advised that the state government should exercise caution before making similar decisions in the future.
The West Bengal Junior Doctor’s Front (WBJDF), which represents junior doctors in the state and leads the protest against the R.G. Kar incident, condemned Mahato's transfer and that of other doctors involved in the movement as a form of government reprisal.
Point of View
It is imperative to recognize the delicate balance between administrative authority and the rights of medical professionals. The Calcutta High Court's recent decision underscores the necessity for the government to exercise discretion and fairness in its dealings with healthcare workers, especially in light of the tragic events that have unfolded in recent months.
NationPress
31/07/2025
Frequently Asked Questions
What was the reason behind Aniket Mahato's transfer?
Aniket Mahato's transfer was deemed 'arbitrary' and unjust, particularly given his prominent role in advocating for justice following a tragic incident involving a junior doctor.
What did the Calcutta High Court rule regarding his case?
The Calcutta High Court ruled that the West Bengal government cannot take any administrative or disciplinary action against Mahato while his case is being heard.
What is the stance of the West Bengal Junior Doctor’s Front on this matter?
The West Bengal Junior Doctor’s Front has condemned the transfer of Mahato and other doctors as a form of government retaliation against those advocating for justice.
