Kolkata doctor rape-murder: Calcutta HC orders CBI probe, 10 critical takeaways from hearing

The Calcutta High Court on Tuesday conducted a crucial hearing addressing the shocking rape and murder of a 2nd Year PG student at RG Kar Medical College and Hospital. The case, which has garnered widespread attention, involves allegations of police misconduct, administrative insensitivity and a possible cover-up. The court’s scrutiny of the investigation revealed several disturbing details leading to intense criticism of the state government’s handling of the case and raising questions about the integrity of the ongoing probe. Here are 10 key points of the hearing today that also highlighted the urgent need for justice and accountability in this tragic incident:

CBI investigation ordered: The Calcutta High Court directed the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to investigate the rape and murder of a junior doctor at RG Kar Medical College in Kolkata, citing a lack of significant progress in the case.

More from India

'First Assam visit after Op Sindoor': PM Modi inaugurates projects worth Rs 18,530 cr India to host fifth Coast Guard Global Summit in Chennai in 2027

High court’s urgency: The high court emphasised the urgency of the investigation expressing concern that delays could lead to the destruction of evidence and influencing of witnesses.

Transfer of case materials: The West Bengal government was instructed to transfer the case diary and all relevant records to the CBI by 10 AM on 14 August 2024.

Judicial review of protests: The Calcutta High Court acknowledged the widespread protests by doctors but appealed for the resumption of medical duties to prevent hardship for patients particularly those from less affluent backgrounds.

Impact Shorts

More Shorts

'New dawn': PM Modi meets Manipur violence victims in first visit since 2023 unrest

CP Radhakrishnan takes oath as Vice President of India

Initial misreporting allegations: The court questioned the West Bengal government about allegations that the police initially reported the death as a suicide. This claim was made to the student’s parents, who were allegedly misled and made to wait hours before viewing her body.

Judicial observations: Chief Justice TS Sivagnanam and Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharya criticised the handling of the case, noting that if the parents were misled, it reflects a serious lapse in sensitivity and administrative duty.

Delay in identifying the body: Senior advocate Bikash Ranjan Bhattacharya, representing the deceased’s parents, highlighted that they were informed of a suicide but only allowed to see the body after a three-hour delay raising concerns about the mishandling of evidence.

Principal’s resignation and reappointment: Dr Sandip Ghosh, the college principal who resigned citing “moral responsibility,” was promptly reappointed to another principal position at Calcutta National Medical College. This move was criticised by the court as inappropriate and indicative of administrative bias. The court expressed frustration over the rapid reappointment of the principal questioning the integrity of the administrative actions and expressing a lack of empathy from the principal’s side.

Order for principal to go on leave: The high court ordered that Dr Ghosh be placed on long leave expressing dissatisfaction with his continued involvement in any administrative capacity given the gravity of the case.

State’s investigation response: The state argued that a thorough investigation was conducted and that no further probe was necessary. They claimed the case was classified as unnatural death due to the absence of a formal complaint when the body was discovered.

Court’s rebuke of state’s arguments: The court was irate with the state’s justification criticising the failure to file a complaint and accusing the administration of inhumanity and a lack of proper investigation. The court questioned the state’s initial classification of the case as an “unnatural death” instead of murder, particularly noting the college administration’s failure to lodge a formal complaint.

Urgency and future proceedings: The court scheduled further hearings to consider the petitioners’ request for transferring the investigation to the CBI, emphasising the need for an immediate and thorough review of the case to ensure justice.