New Delhi, April 26: Resident doctors of the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) on Thursday evening went on an indefinite strike demanding immediate removal of a faculty member who allegedly slapped a resident doctor.
The strike is likely to paralyse many of the hospital functions including routine surgeries, out-patient clinics and academic activities.
"It is hereby informed to the concerned authorities that Resident Doctor's Association, AIIMS has declared an indefinite strike with effect from 5 p.m. on April 26, 2018," said a notice issued by the association and signed by RDA President Harjit Singh Bhatti.
RDA members said that Atul Kumar, Chief of R.P. Centre for Opthalmic Sciences, slapped a resident doctor (name withheld) during rounds on Wednesday in front of patients and other hospital staff for not keeping his patient ready when he was little ahead of his schedule.
"Due to the casual dealing of Atul Kumar by the authorities who has physically assaulted a resident doctor, we have no option but to preserve our self-respect and stop working ... Not only has Atul Kumar failed to lead by example, his repeated misbehavior has tarnished the student-teacher relationship.
"Such people should not be allowed to lead any department, and we demand his immediate resignation as Chief of R.P. Centre, AIIMS," said Bhatti.
Accepting the slapping incident, AIIMS in a statement said the accused faculty member has "apologised repeatedly to the resident, immediately and today morning".
It went on to say that the resident doctor wrote to AIIMS Director acknowledging the apologies tendered and "requested that no further action be taken in this regard".
However, the resident doctors have gone on an indefinite strike.
"As a consequence of this strike, all routine surgeries have been cancelled, out-patient clinics will run in a restricted manner, and all academic activity and exams are postponed indefinitely," said the hospital administration.
AIIMS further informed that it has instituted contingency measures to take care of the admitted patients including those in the ICUs and wards.
"The Director has appealed to the RDA to call off this illegal strike in the interest of patient care," AIIMS said in the statement.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
SC refuses to entertain PIL seeking menstrual leave policy across country
New Delhi (PTI): The Supreme Court on Friday refused to entertain a PIL seeking a nationwide policy providing paid menstrual leave for women students and workers, observing no one would give them jobs in such a scenario and that such a provision would unintentionally reinforce gender stereotypes.
The top court, however, asked the Centre and competent authorities to consider the representation of the PIL petitioner and examine the possibility of framing a policy on menstrual leave after consulting all relevant stakeholders.
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi observed that while the intent behind the petition might be welfare-oriented, the practical reality of the job market could lead to "counter-productive" outcomes for women.
ALSO READ: 'NATO air defences intercept third ballistic missile over Turkiye since start of Iran war'
"These pleas are made to create fear, to call women inferior, that menstruation is something bad happening to them... this is an affirmative right... but think about the employer who needs to give paid leave," the bench observed.
Senior advocate MR Shamsad, appearing for the petitioner, said the Karnataka government has formulated a policy to allow menstrual leave and some private organisations are also providing this facility.
"Voluntarily they are giving, then it is excellent. That is a very good thing. But the moment you introduce it as a compulsory condition in law, you do not know the damage it will do to the career of women. Nobody will give them responsibilities, even in judicial services, a normal trial will not be assigned to them," the CJI said.
During the hearing, the bench highlighted the risk of "unintended consequences", suggesting that a mandatory leave policy might discourage private employers from hiring women.
"The moment you introduce it as a compulsory condition in law, you do not know the damage it will do to the career of women," CJI Kant remarked.
"Nobody will give them responsibilities... This can be harmful to their growth," the bench added.
Justice Bagchi echoed these concerns from a business perspective, noting that affirmative action is constitutionally recognised but must be balanced against market realities.
"Look at the practical reality in the job market. The more unattractive the human resource, the less is the possibility of assumption in the market. Will any employer be happy with the competing claims of other genders," Justice Bagchi asked.
The bench was hearing a PIL filed by Shailendra Mani Tripathi.
At the outset, the bench raised the issue of locus of the PIL petitioner and pointed out that no woman herself has approached the court.
It was the third petition filed by Tripathi on the same issue.
The first petition was dealt by the bench in 2023 and it allowed the petitioner to give a representation before the Union Ministry of Women and Children.
The petitioner approached the court in 2024 again on the ground that the Centre did not respond to his representation. The PIL was disposed of in July 2024 again with the direction to the government to take a decision.
"These petitions are deeply rooted, designed PILs. You are not a bona fide petitioner. This is basically only to create a type of impression in young women that you still have some natural issues and you are not at par with male persons and you cannot work like them during a particular time," the bench observed initially.
Shamshad replied that while Odisha has a policy since 1992, Karnataka recently allowed such a leave policy, and Kerala allowed relaxation in schools.
He added that many private organisations are voluntarily allowing period leave.
"The petitioner has made a representation to the authority. It seems to us that whatever was required to be done at the end of the petitioner, he has done for the welfare of young women. It is not necessary for the petitioner to approach the court time and again and seek a positive mandamus.
"We direct that the competent authority shall consider the representation directed to be considered by this court by order dated February 24, 2023, and July 8, 2024, for modelling a policy in consultation with all," the bench ordered.
