NO ROOM FOR DESPAIR, NO RETREAT FROM JUSTICE: RG KAR VICTIM’S PARENTS CHALLENGE SANDIP GHOSH’S BAIL AS CITIZENS PREPARE MARCH TO CBI OFFICE

October 25, 2026

The fight for justice in the RG Kar rape-and-murder case has entered another contentious phase, with the victim’s parents questioning the bail granted to former RG Kar Medical College and Hospital principal Sandip Ghosh in a corruption case and demanding greater accountability from investigators. As anger over the handling of the case continues, two citizens’ organisations, Voice of Abhaya and Voice of Women, have announced a protest march from RG Kar Medical College and Hospital to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) office on November 12, calling on citizens, particularly women, to join the demonstration and press for action.

The Supreme Court granted Ghosh bail on October 17 in the case concerning alleged financial irregularities at the Kolkata medical college and the manipulation of merit scores to accommodate undeserving candidates. The decision has provoked fresh questions from the victim’s family, who remain dissatisfied with the progress of the wider investigation and the failure, in their view, to establish accountability for all those they believe may have been involved. The bail order has therefore become a renewed focus of public anger, although it relates to the corruption case and does not, by itself, determine responsibility for the rape and murder.

Ratna Debnath, the victim’s mother and a BJP MLA, expressed anguish over Ghosh’s release on bail and questioned why people who were allegedly present with her daughter in the hours before her death had not been arrested. She argued that investigators should examine who had been with the postgraduate doctor during the period between midnight and 6 am, when doctors have said she died. Raising questions about the circumstances surrounding her daughter’s final hours, Debnath demanded that those who could provide relevant information be questioned and held accountable where evidence warranted action.

The victim’s mother also alleged that evidence had been destroyed and demanded an investigation into who had directed the alleged destruction. She named the then health minister, health secretary NS Nigam and Sandip Ghosh while calling for the identification and prosecution of those responsible. These are allegations made by the bereaved mother, and the question of individual responsibility must be established through evidence and the legal process. Nevertheless, her remarks reflect the family’s continuing concern that the investigation has not adequately addressed every aspect of the case.

The victim’s father also criticised the outcome, saying that Ghosh should have received a life sentence in the case, while expressing faith that justice would ultimately prevail. His statement conveyed the family’s continuing frustration with what it sees as an incomplete pursuit of accountability. He also questioned the continued tenure of the health secretary, arguing that the official would not remain in the position if evidence emerged warranting removal. Referring to the chief minister’s stated position, he maintained that action should follow if the relevant evidence was established.

Meanwhile, the planned march by Voice of Abhaya and Voice of Women signals that sections of civil society intend to keep public attention focused on the case. The organisations have urged people from all walks of life, particularly women, to participate in the November 12 demonstration. Their appeal emphasises that citizens should not abandon their demands for justice or rely exclusively on governments to bring about accountability. Organisers have called on the CBI to act on the available evidence and argued that continued public mobilisation is necessary despite concerns over alleged attempts to destroy, withhold or suppress evidence.

The organisers’ message, encapsulated in the declaration that there is “no room for despair”, seeks to sustain a movement that has continued to demand answers following the crime. Their planned march is intended to demonstrate that public scrutiny has not diminished and that the demand for accountability remains alive. By choosing to march from the medical college to the CBI office, the groups are placing the investigating agency’s handling of the case at the centre of their protest.

BJP leader Rahul Sinha also expressed surprise at the bail granted to Ghosh, while acknowledging that the decision rested with the judiciary. He said that, in his view, it would have been preferable if bail had not been granted, but stressed that neither political parties nor individual leaders could interfere with a judge’s decision. His remarks reflected the controversy surrounding the order while recognising the legal right of an accused person to seek bail.

In granting Ghosh bail, the Supreme Court considered the length of his detention and the progress of the corruption trial. A bench comprising Justices MM Sundresh and PB Varale allowed his plea challenging the Calcutta High Court’s February 23 order rejecting bail. The court took note of the fact that Ghosh had spent more than two years in custody while only seven of the 147 witnesses had been examined. The decision was therefore linked to the period of incarceration and the pace of the proceedings in that case.

The distinction between the corruption proceedings and the wider rape-and-murder investigation remains important. The grant of bail in the financial irregularities case does not amount to a judicial determination that all allegations connected with the broader controversy have been resolved. The victim’s parents continue to demand answers about the circumstances of their daughter’s death, the handling of evidence and the possible responsibility of others. Their questions reflect their belief that the pursuit of justice must extend beyond individual proceedings and address every matter supported by evidence.

The renewed mobilisation also highlights the continuing role of public protest in demanding institutional accountability. For the victim’s family and the citizens’ groups, the issue is not confined to the legal status of one former hospital principal. It concerns whether the investigation has adequately addressed the circumstances surrounding the crime and whether those responsible for any wrongdoing will face appropriate legal consequences. Their appeal for public participation indicates that they intend to maintain pressure on the investigating agency until they believe meaningful answers have been provided.

As November 12 approaches, the proposed march is likely to become another focal point in the continuing campaign for justice in the RG Kar case. The victim’s parents have made clear that they remain dissatisfied with the investigation’s progress, while the citizens’ organisations have called on the public to sustain its demands for accountability. The challenge before the authorities is to address these concerns through a thorough, evidence-based and legally sound process. For a family still seeking answers after an immeasurable loss, and for citizens who continue to demand transparency, the central question remains whether every relevant lead will be examined and every person found responsible through due process will be held accountable.