Kolkata Rape Case And Suo Moto Cognizance Through Supreme Court

(Breach Of Fundamental Rights)

Introduction
The alleged rape and murder of a postgraduate medical trainee at RG Kar Medical College in Kolkata have sent shockwaves across the entire country and have seen an eruption of protests and calls for justice. A mere local investigation into the incident rapidly turned straight into a widespread criminal case; hence, the Supreme Court of India took suo moto into the matter.

This article weighs constitutional violations that emerged from this horrific event, the legal mechanisms activated to handle the crime, and the wider implications of the Supreme Court's intervention. It has brought into question the competence of the administration of the kingdom to protect the safety and dignity of women, efficiency in the processes of investigation, and violation of constitutional rights, especially under Article 21 (Right to Life), and Article 14 (Right to Equality).

1. Incident and Preliminary Investigation
   On the ninth of August 2024, the body of a paramedic was found and sent shock waves throughout Kolkata. Initial police checks pointed out sexual assault and another murder. Protests were fast in coming led by medical students and professionals who called for quick and apparent justice. The case started getting resolved with the intervention of the Calcutta Police. But with growing suspicion regarding competency to mishandle evidence—especially after one attack on the premises of the hospital once during the protest—the Calcutta High Court took an interest in intervening. The courtroom expressed as much doubt about impartiality in research as it did hand over the investigation to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).
    
2. Suo Moto Cognizance of the Supreme Court
   On August 15, 2024, the Supreme Court took suo moto cognizance of the matter and expressed serious concern over the situation. Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud said these kinds of cases no longer constitute a mere violation of a person's rights but also erode public confidence in the country's ability to protect its citizens.
   
   Article 21 of the Constitution of India guarantees one's life and personal liberty, which in the given case has turned into a gross violation. The intervention of the Supreme Court reflects that the mother or father of fundamental rights is intervening to see that justice is done.
    
3. Role of CBI and Judicial Review
   The magnitude of the breakthrough in the investigation was marked when the case was handed over to the CBI. The selection of the best investigative employer in a courtroom has stemmed from concerns related to fabricated evidence and alleged influence with the help of local political actors. Considering the magnitude of the public outcry and national attention that this case has attracted, there are expectations that the CBI investigation will be transparent and unbiased.
   
   This case is also important for the judiciary to look into so that a fine balance between national and primary forces is struck to ensure that investigations remain apolitical. The judiciary has intervened earlier in cases where the apparatus of the kingdom failed to safeguard the rights of individuals, as were seen in landmark cases such as Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, where the interpretation of Article 21 was extended to include procedural fairness.
    
4. Constitutional Violations and Rights Under Siege
   This brutal crime has once again thrown light on the sensitive country for women's protection in India. Article 14 of the Constitution guarantees equality before regulation; judicial activism by the Supreme Court has brought forth the fact that no citizen must feel left out or overlooked by the judicial machinery. In this case, the right to equality under the regulation turned into a threat and required a quick court motion. Fundamental privacy inherent, recognized as such under K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, is violated in this case. The attack on this now-not-so-skilled doctor caused physical injury to her and mutilated the very core of her dignity—yet another fundamental right under Article 21.
    
5. International Comparison
   The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) has already addressed national government failures to protect victims of violence many times. The most relevant parallel to this case can be found in the case of Opuz v. Turkey, where the Chamber of the Court ruled that a state's failure to prevent domestic violence itself maintains a decent life and prohibits inhuman or degrading treatment under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).
   
   In the United States, matters concerning the kingdom's duty in the protection of the people against violent crime take the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. In DeShaney v. Winnebago County, the US Supreme Court addressed the duty of the state when failure is observed on its part in the protection of individuals against harm.
    
6. Recent Development
   As of October 2024, the CBI keeps investigation into the Kolkata rape case under scrutiny, with key suspects including a citizen volunteer. Public protests have died down barely, while calls for swift justice keep getting louder.

Besides that, the case has restarted debates on imposing strict guidelines to safeguard girls in the workplace, particularly within the clinical entity, where harassment and violence are more often mentioned. The Supreme Court insists that it will keep a close eye on the trends to ensure there is no miscarriage of justice. With the findings of the CBI expected in the following months, the prison fraternity expects that the situation may want to set new precedents for the way the judiciary deals with cases of entirely gender-based violence.

Conclusion
This case is a grim reminder of the flaws in our justice delivery system. While the handing over of the case to the CBI and the intervention of the Supreme Court may be taken as signals of hope for justice, the wider social and institutional disasters are highlighted. This is very important for the judiciary-not only must it be most effective in knowing about punitive measures, but it must also advocate systemic reforms that would prevent the recurrence of such incidents.

Suo moto cognizance on the part of the Supreme Court itself repeats judicial review for cases where the offense is against fundamental rights. Justice to the victim is not so much a question of punishing the perpetrators as restoring public confidence in the rule of law.

End Notes:

• D.Y. Chandrachud, Chief Justice of India, comments on the importance of judicial activism in ensuring public trust in the legal system.
• Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597, expanding the scope of Article 21 of the Indian Constitution to include procedural fairness.
• K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, AIR 2017 SC 4161, affirming the right to privacy as a fundamental right under Article 21.

Written By: Akshit Dwivedi, First-Year B.A. LL.B (Hons.), Student at Hidayatullah National Law University.