why country needs central medical protection Act?

 Why the country’s medical fraternity urging the GOI for an exclusive crime deterrent central medical protection ACT?

The demand for an exclusive central protection law for doctors and allied healthcare workers in India, despite the existence of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), and the Information Technology (IT) Act, stems from persistent gaps in addressing violence against healthcare professionals and hospital property. Below is a detailed explanation of why such a law is deemed necessary:

  1. Inadequacy of Existing Laws

   - Generalized Provisions in BNS and BNSS: The BNS and BNSS, which replaced the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), provide general penal provisions for crimes like assault, grievous hurt, or property damage. However, these laws do not specifically address the unique vulnerabilities faced by healthcare workers, such as attacks by patients’ relatives during emotionally charged situations (e.g., patient deaths). For instance, Clause 115 of BNS was considered for provisions to penalize violence against healthcare personnel, but no specific inclusion was made, leaving the issue under general laws that lack targeted deterrence.

   - IT Act Limitations: The IT Act primarily addresses cybercrimes, such as online harassment or data breaches, but is irrelevant to physical violence, verbal abuse, or property damage in healthcare settings, which constitute the majority of incidents against doctors and hospital staff.

   - Lack of Specific Deterrence: General laws apply uniformly to all citizens without recognizing the critical role of healthcare workers or the context of their workplace, where emotional distress can escalate into violence. This lack of specificity dilutes the deterrent effect needed to curb targeted attacks on medical professionals.

  2. Persistent Violence Despite State Laws

   - Patchwork of State Legislation: While 24 states have enacted laws to address violence against healthcare professionals, such as the Medicare Service Persons and Medicare Service Institutions (Prevention of Violence and Damage or Loss to Property) Act, these vary in stringency and implementation. For example, Maharashtra reported 636 complaints and 1,318 arrests between 2015 and 2020, but only four convictions, highlighting enforcement loopholes. Four states and five Union Territories lack any such laws, leaving healthcare workers unprotected in those regions   

- Weak Enforcement and Awareness: Even where state laws exist, poor awareness among police and judicial authorities hampers enforcement. For instance, a Right to Information (RTI) petition revealed no convictions under the Medicare Act in Punjab and Haryana from 2010 to 2015, despite known incidents. A central law could standardize protections and ensure uniform enforcement across India   

- Kerala Example: Kerala’s 2012 law initially lacked "teeth" due to poor integration with the IPC/CrPC and low police awareness. Only after the Vandana Das murder case did enforcement improve, underscoring the need for a robust, well-publicized central law to avoid such delays nationwide.[](

 3. Unique Vulnerabilities of Healthcare Workers &Uniqueness of sensible& sensitive medical profession

   - High-Risk Environment: Healthcare professionals face violence from patients’ relatives, particularly in cases of medical emergencies or patient deaths, due to emotional distress, miscommunication, or unmet expectations. Unlike other professions, they are uniquely exposed to such risks during routine duties.[](  

- Broad Scope of Violence: Violence against healthcare workers (VAHCW) includes physical assaults, verbal abuse, threats, and property damage, affecting not just doctors but also nurses, paramedics, ASHAs, ambulance drivers, and other staff. The World Health Organization defines VAHCW as incidents challenging the safety, well-being, or health of healthcare workers, necessitating comprehensive legal coverage

   - Impact on Healthcare Delivery: Violence disrupts medical services, discourages doctors from taking high-risk cases, and weakens the healthcare system, ultimately harming patients. A central law could address this systemic issue by ensuring a safe working environment

 4. Failure of Previous Central Initiatives

   - Unenacted Draft Bills: The Healthcare Services Personnel and Clinical Establishments (Prohibition of Violence and Damage to Property) Bill, 2019, and the Prevention of Violence Against Healthcare Professionals and Clinical Establishments Bill, 2022, were drafted but never enacted. In February 2023, then Union Health Minister Mansukh Mandaviya confirmed the government’s decision to shelve standalone legislation, citing state laws and BNS/BNSS as sufficient   

- Temporary Measures Inadequate: The Epidemic Diseases (Amendment) Act, 2020, introduced during the COVID-19 pandemic, made violence against healthcare workers a cognizable, non-bailable offense with imprisonment of 3 months to 5 years and fines of ₹50,000 to ₹2,00,000. However, this was context-specific and not a permanent solution .  

- National Task Force (NTF) Dismissal: In 2024, the Supreme Court’s NTF, formed after the RG Kar Medical College rape-murder case, concluded that existing state laws and BNS/BNSS were sufficient, dismissing the need for a central law. This stance contradicts the Indian Medical Association (IMA) and other medical bodies’ persistent demand for a deterrent central law, highlighting a disconnect between policy and ground realities

 5. Need for a Unified, Deterrent Central Law

   - Standardization Across States: A central law would ensure uniform protections, eliminating disparities in state legislation and covering regions without specific laws. It could define violence clearly, impose stringent penalties (e.g., imprisonment and fines), and mandate swift action like FIR filing within six hours, as suggested by the NTF  

- Strong Deterrence: A dedicated law would signal zero tolerance, deterring potential offenders through public awareness and severe consequences, unlike the generic provisions of BNS/BNSS. International examples, such as the UK’s NHS zero-tolerance policy or felony classifications in some US states, show that targeted laws reduce violence  

- Comprehensive Scope: The law could protect all healthcare workers, including grassroots staff, and cover both public and private hospitals, addressing the current focus on government facilities   - Systemic Reforms: Beyond penalties, the law could mandate security measures (e.g., CCTV, trained security personnel, hospital protection committees), communication training, and public awareness campaigns to address root causes like miscommunication and high out-of-pocket expenses

 6. Public and Professional Demand

   - Medical Community Advocacy: The IMA, with over 3.5 lakh members, and resident doctors’ associations like FORDA have repeatedly demanded a central law, especially after high-profile incidents like the RG Kar case. Protests and strikes reflect widespread frustration with the government’s reliance on state laws and BNS/BNSS  

- Public Interest Litigation (PIL): Efforts like the Medico-Legal Society of India’s PIL in Maharashtra and advocacy in Kerala highlight the medical community’s push for stronger legal frameworks, which a central law could fulfill  

- Social Media Sentiment: Posts on X reflect ongoing calls for a central protection act, emphasizing stringent punishments and broader coverage for all healthcare workers, indicating public and professional support.

  7. Counterarguments and Rebuttals

   - Government’s Stance: The government argues that state laws and BNS/BNSS are sufficient, and health and law enforcement are state subjects. However, the concurrent list allows central legislation, and the lack of uniform enforcement justifies a national law 

  - Implementation Challenges: Critics note that even a central law may face enforcement issues, as seen in Kerala’s initial struggles. Yet, a central law with clear rules, police training, and public awareness could overcome these, as evidenced by Kerala’s post-Vandana Das improvements   

- NTF Recommendations: The NTF suggested training medical professionals in legal protocols and public awareness campaigns instead of new legislation. While valuable, these measures are supplementary and do not replace the need for a deterrent legal framework

 In Conclusion ,The BNS, BNSS, and IT Act, while comprehensive in their respective domains, fail to address the specific, recurring issue of violence against healthcare workers and hospital property in India. State laws are inconsistent, poorly enforced, and absent in some regions, while temporary measures like the Epidemic Diseases Act are inadequate. A central protection law is essential to standardize protections, deter violence through stringent penalties, and implement systemic reforms like security measures and awareness campaigns.

 The medical community’s persistent demands, supported by high-profile incidents and international precedents, underscore the urgency of such legislation to ensure a safe working environment for healthcare professionals and strengthen India’s healthcare system.

Even though mere amendment of the existing state law is not sufficient and it also needs president of India assent, we ,the IMA in AP,  submitted and pursuing with GoAP -for amendment of the existing act to make it more stringent and crime deterrent.