—image source www.livelaw.in

National Task Force: Can It Deliver?

The recent formation of a National Task Force to address the rising violence against healthcare workers seems like a critical step forward. However, a closer examination reveals potential shortcomings, challenges, and lingering doubts about whether this initiative will lead to genuine change. The task force, though welcomed by many, raises questions: Will it truly push for a central protection law, or is it merely a temporary measure designed to diffuse tension? More importantly, why was the Indian Medical Association (IMA) excluded, despite being the largest representation of doctors in India?

Why the IMA Should Have Been Included.

Once again, the central machinery has demonstrated insensitivity by excluding the IMA from the task force. Despite being a private organization, the IMA is the largest and most influential body representing doctors in India. From ongoing agitations to protests for the rights of doctors, no movement gains significant momentum unless supported by the IMA’s national and state branches. In contrast, statutory bodies like FORDA or MARD, while effective in their capacity, are limited by their transient memberships, as they consist largely of resident doctors who must move on after completing their courses. The IMA, however, serves as a long-term association capable of providing sustained advocacy.

While heads of government-run institutions and medical colleges can contribute valuable academic insights, they often function more as bureaucratic rubber stamps. A glaring example of this was the flagship Ayushman Bharat Scheme. Despite being expected to deliver on this government initiative, private sector doctors were not adequately consulted. The result? Ayushman Bharat has become a source of stress and mistrust, forcing many healthcare centers to adopt questionable practices just to stay afloat.

Perception Over Protection.

The government’s reluctance to enact a strong central protection law for healthcare workers seems driven by the fear of negative public perception. There is a long-standing belief that any law favoring doctors will be seen as oppressive to the masses. However, this line of thinking must be reset. The protection of healthcare workers is not an elitist privilege—it is a necessity for the functioning of a fair and efficient healthcare system.

Limited Scope and Authority

The task force lacks the binding authority to enforce laws or compel states to act on its recommendations. Even though the Supreme Court’s endorsement gives it legitimacy, its role remains advisory. There is a significant risk that its proposals could get lost in bureaucratic red tape or diluted in the political process, especially if viewed as controversial.

Nothing short of a strict central protection act should be acceptable.

The SC advisory to look into and brief up the security measures is all good theoretically but in reality its just a lollypop. They are hard to monitor and maintain, and are extremely short lived.

In the absence of a strict legal structure the culprits are not only allowed to escape but also incentivized to commit further crime. This is well exemplified from the Maharashtra case. According to a PIL in Maharashtra alone, between 2015 and 2020, there were 636 complaints and 1,318 arrests related to violence against healthcare workers, yet only four convictions were secured. The problem was not just in the law’s provisions but in the loopholes that allowed criminal lawyers to circumvent conviction, rendering the laws toothless. 

A strict central law that can be and should be uniformly followed and that plugs the existing loopholes is the bare minimum requirement. And to do that it must incorporate the provisions of 2020 amendments in epidemic disease act and the Code Grey of the Kerala act.

The Provisions of 2020 Epidemic act amendments.

What are provisions of epidemic act amendments that the IMA and the medical fraternity is battling for, its specifically the section 3C and 3D

3C Presumption of Offence

Where a person is prosecuted for committing an offence punishable under
sub-section (3) of section 3, the Court shall presume that such person has committed
such offence, unless the contrary is proved.

3D Presumption of Culpable Mind.

 (1) In any prosecution for an offence under sub-section (3) of section 3
which requires a culpable mental state on the part of the accused, the Court shall
presume the existence of such mental state, but it shall be a defense for the accused to prove the fact that he had no such mental state with respect to the act charged as an offence in that prosecution.

The Kerala Act

The High Court of Kerala has directed that an FIR be filed within one hour after the incidence of violence. They called it the “golden hour” for the protection of doctors, much like the “golden hour” that doctors prescribe to treat heart attacks or strokes.

The Kerala Act also makes violence against healthcare workers a cognizable and non-bailable offence. It also allows for expedited delivery of justice by stipulating that an Inspector must complete an investigation into the offence within sixty days of filing an FIR. 

The Role of the Task Force

The Supreme Court’s advisory for the task force to recommend improved security measures for healthcare workers is well-intentioned but lacks the necessary teeth. Security measures alone are difficult to monitor and maintain over the long term. Without a strict legal structure to back them up, perpetrators are not only able to escape justice but are incentivized to continue their attacks.

What’s truly needed is a central protection act—a robust law that plugs existing loopholes and ensures the safety of healthcare workers. The provisions in the 2020 amendments to the Epidemic Diseases Act and the Code Grey initiative from Kerala should serve as a foundation for this law. Anything less would fall short of addressing the systemic problem.

What to Expect: Can the Task Force Push for a Central Law?

While the task force may not have the power to legislate, it could influence the momentum for legal reform. Whether it will advocate for a central protection law remains uncertain, and much depends on its composition, mandate, and the political will to turn recommendations into actionable policies. Without inclusion from the private sector, particularly organizations like the IMA, the task force’s reach will be limited.

If the task force functions merely as a crisis-management tool, its recommendations may fail to create the systemic changes necessary to protect healthcare workers in the long term. However, if it engages diverse stakeholders and prioritizes a central law, it could build momentum toward meaningful reforms.

Conclusion: The Way Forward

The creation of a National Task Force acknowledges the crisis healthcare workers face, but its success depends on moving beyond temporary solutions. The task force must advocate for a comprehensive central law, addressing the gaps in current legislation and ensuring that violence against healthcare workers is met with strict penalties and swift justice.

Moreover, the task force must ensure its recommendations are inclusive and actionable, involving both the public and private sectors. Anything less risks reducing the task force to a symbolic gesture rather than a solution to a deeply entrenched problem.

In closing, the task force has the potential to deliver real change, but only if it avoids the pitfalls of past initiatives and pushes for substantive reforms that prioritize the safety of healthcare workers.

What are your views regarding this please do share.

Dr Shishir Srivastav

Pediatrician & Director Shiv Krishna Hospital

Founder President Of Academy of Pediatrics Ghaziabad (Trans Hindon)

Author of Rage Against The Dying Of The Light

—