New Delhi

Advertisment

Junior doctors in the Indian state of West Bengal protesting against the August 9 rape and murder of a post-graduate trainee doctor at Kolkata's RG Kar Medical College and Hospital on Tuesday (Oct 1) resumed their indefinite "total cease work".

On September 21, the junior doctors rejoined their duties partially at government hospitals following a 42-day-long protest. However, they were again ceasing work.

Also read | Kolkata doctor rape case: SC says ‘substantial leads’ found in CBI probe; slams Bengal govt’s ‘tardiness’

Advertisment

According to a report by the news agency PTI, the doctors began their "total cease work" to press the Mamata Banerjee-led West Bengal government on various demands including ensuring their safety and security at all medical establishments.

'We are still being attacked...'

Aniket Mahato, one of the agitating junior doctors, told PTI that the doctors were not seeing any positive approach from the state government to fulfil their demands for safety and security.

Advertisment

"Today is the 52nd day (of the protest) and we are still being attacked and there is no attempt to keep the other promises made during the meetings with Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee," Mahato said.

"In the given situation, we are left with no option other than opting for full cease work, starting today," he added. 

Also watch | New twist in Kolkata doctor rape-murder case

×

The agitating doctor also pointed out that unless the protesters see clear action from the state government, the complete cease work would continue. 

SC hears suo moto petition relating to RG Kar case

On Monday, the Indian Supreme Court (SC) was hearing the suo moto petition relating to the RG Kar case. The Supreme Court noted that substantial leads had come up in the investigation conducted by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).

The bench said that the investigative agency has given statements on both aspects — alleged rape and murder and financial irregularities. The court also reiterated its earlier ruling that no intermediary is allowed to reveal the victim's identity. 

(With inputs from agencies)