Calcutta High Court Calls For Report By SSKM Hospital In Plea Alleging Its Use As 'Shelter' By Recruitment Scam Accused To Stall ED Probe

The Calcutta High Court has called for a report from the Director of IPGMER & SSKM Hospital, detailing the health condition, duration of admission, and the facilities availed by high-profile accused in the Recruitment Scam including Sujoy Krishna Bhadra, who was alleged to have been admitted to the hospital for months on end in order to stall the Enforcement Directorate (ED) investigation. 

In refusing to form an opinion without hearing the Advocate General, a division bench of CJ TS Sivagnanam and Justice Supratim Bhattacharya held:

Admittedly, the SSKM hospital and IPGMER cater to all people regardless of their status. If these allegations are true, it is a very serious matter. The court cannot embark on an evaluation exercise of the accused lodged in the hospital. The treating doctors must make an honest assessment. We direct the director of the IPGMER at SSKM hospital to file a report on the facilities and how long they have been availed by the patients as well as a brief note on their health condition.

It was argued by the petitioners that the accused Bhadra, had occupied ICCU wards in the State-run hospital for multiple months, and that such occupation was leading to those in actual need of hospital beds and medical attention missing out on getting admission to SSKM hospital.

It was argued that whenever high-profile accused, such as Bhadra, apprehended being probed by Central Agencies, they would get themselves admitted to the SSKM hospital, which had become a sort of haven and shelter for high-profile accused. 

Petitioners proposed that the accused in such cases could be sent to Central Government hospitals in order to allow for an independent assessment of their health to be made. 

This submission was supported by ADG Ashoke Kr Chakrabarti as well. 

Upon hearing the petitioner's the Court questioned the procedure for transfer of an undertrial inmate from a correctional home to a state-run hospital. 

It was told that such decisions were made when the Doctor and Superintendent of the Correctional Home were of the opinion that the accused would not be able to be treated inside the jail premises, and shifting him to a hospital would be needed to treat him correctly. 

DSG Dhiraj Trivedi for the ED submitted that the investigative agencies have no call to make in the transfer of an inmate from police custody to the hospital. 

DSG Billwadal Bhattacharya for the Union submitted that the process of transferring inmates from prison to hospital had been laid down in the Jail Code, and that it depended on the jail doctor's and superintendent's opinion. 

In observing that prolonged admission to hospital for 3-4 months could only take place in situations wherein the accused had become critically ill, or was on life-support to rule out the possibility of being shifted, the Court emphasized a need to make an independent evaluation of their health.  

Accordingly, it called for a report from the hospital authorities, and posted the matter for hearing on 24th January. 

Case: Sri Rama Prasad Sarkar v State of West Bengal

Case No: WPA (P) 622/2023