Delhi High Court Directs AIIMS to Form Medical Board for Jaideep Sengar's Health Assessment
The Delhi High Court has issued a significant directive, ordering the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) to establish a specialized medical board. This board is tasked with conducting a thorough and independent examination of Jaideep Sengar, who is currently seeking the suspension of his 10-year jail sentence on urgent medical grounds.
Background of the Case and Medical Plea
Jaideep Sengar is a central figure in the high-profile 2018 custodial death case involving the father of the Unnao rape survivor. He has filed a petition requesting relief from his prison term, citing a severe health condition: Stage-IV oral cancer with suspected recurrence. This medical plea forms the basis for his request to have his sentence suspended, arguing that his deteriorating health necessitates immediate and specialized medical attention outside the prison system.
It is important to note that Jaideep Sengar is the brother of Kuldeep Sengar, a former BJP functionary who was expelled from the party and subsequently convicted for raping the Unnao girl when she was a minor. This connection adds a layer of complexity and public scrutiny to the current proceedings, linking it to one of India's most notorious sexual assault cases.
Court's Observations and Legal Proceedings
A bench comprising Justices Navin Chawla and Ravinder Dudeja presided over the hearing and made a pivotal observation. The justices emphasized that an independent medical assessment is absolutely essential to accurately determine Jaideep Sengar's current health status. They stressed that such an evaluation must be conducted by a reputable and unbiased medical authority to ensure transparency and fairness in the judicial process.
The court's order mandates AIIMS to assemble a board of medical experts who will examine Jaideep Sengar and submit a detailed report on his condition. This report is expected to play a crucial role in the court's final decision regarding the suspension of his sentence, as it will provide an objective basis for assessing the legitimacy and urgency of his medical claims.
Opposition from CBI and the Survivor's Counsel
The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), which is handling the case, has strongly opposed Jaideep Sengar's petition. The agency has raised serious allegations, contending that the medical documents submitted by the convict in support of his plea are fake or fabricated. This opposition underscores the contentious nature of the petition and highlights the CBI's stance that the request for sentence suspension may be based on fraudulent grounds.
In addition to the CBI's objections, counsel representing the Unnao rape survivor has also voiced firm opposition to the plea. The survivor's legal team has expressed deep apprehensions, fearing that if Jaideep Sengar is granted liberty, he might misuse it. This concern is rooted in the gravity of the original crime and the potential risks associated with releasing a convict involved in such a sensitive case, even temporarily.
Implications and Next Steps
The formation of the AIIMS medical board marks a critical juncture in this legal battle. The board's findings will be instrumental in resolving the conflicting claims about Jaideep Sengar's health. If the medical assessment confirms the severity of his condition, it could pave the way for the suspension of his sentence on humanitarian grounds. Conversely, if the documents are deemed fraudulent, it could lead to the dismissal of his plea and possibly additional legal consequences.
This case continues to draw significant public and media attention, not only due to its connection to the Unnao rape scandal but also because it touches on broader issues of justice, medical ethics, and the treatment of convicts with serious health issues. The Delhi High Court's decision to involve AIIMS reflects a cautious approach, aiming to balance legal rigor with potential humanitarian considerations.
As the proceedings advance, all eyes will be on the AIIMS medical board's report, which is expected to provide clarity and guide the court's final ruling. The outcome could set a precedent for how similar cases are handled in the future, emphasizing the need for verified medical evidence in appeals for sentence suspension based on health grounds.
