logo
Hosps shouldn't insist on ID proof of rape survivors seeking abortion: HC

Hosps shouldn't insist on ID proof of rape survivors seeking abortion: HC

The Delhi High Court has asked hospitals in the national capital to refrain from demanding ID proofs of rape survivors seeking termination of their pregnancy on orders of courts.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma also underlined the pressing need for "clear, practical and sensitive" medical protocols for such survivors, particularly minors.
Lack of clarity on procedures, insistence on identity documents, and the delay in carrying out necessary medical examinations such as ultrasound have all contributed to the further distress of the victim in this case, the court said.
"Hospitals and medical institutions must be sensitised to the fact that cases involving victims of sexual assault, especially minor girls, require a more responsive and sensitive approach," the court said on May 29.
Medical protocols, it said, must align not only with statutory obligations, but also with compassion, practicality, and an understanding of the unique challenges that survivors of sexual violence face.
"Where the victim of sexual assault (major or minor) is accompanied by the investigating officer or has been produced pursuant to direction of a court or CWC, identification proof/ identity card of the victim shall not be insisted upon by hospital and doctor concerned for the purpose of conducting ultrasound or any relevant/ necessary diagnostic procedure. The identification by the IO will suffice in such cases," the verdict said.
The matter at hand related to a minor rape survivor who sought medical termination of pregnancy.
The court issued a slew of directions to all stakeholders to ensure clarity and uniformity in handling cases of sexual assault in which the survivor was pregnant.
The court directed that in all cases, a comprehensive medical examination should be conducted without any delay by the hospital and doctor concerned.
It should be the responsibility of the investigating officer (IO) to identify the victim and ensure that when she is produced before the doctor, hospital or medical board, necessary documents and case file pertaining to the victim are carried by the police officer, the court said.
"In cases of rape victims, where the gestational period exceeds 24 weeks, the medical board shall be constituted immediately, and without waiting for any specific direction from the court, the board shall conduct the necessary medical examination and prepare an appropriate report at the earliest and place before appropriate authorities," it said.
The consent for medical termination of pregnancy should be obtained from the victim or her guardian in the vernacular language understood by them, it noted.
"The hospital administration is directed to make available the latest, updated Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) and relevant legal guidelines in both emergency and gynaecology departments, and to ensure that duty doctors are briefed and sensitised regularly regarding their obligations under the MTP Act, POCSO Act, and guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court and high courts," the court said.
The minor survivor in the case was turned away by the hospital authorities on the ground that a judicial order was first required before any medical assessment could be carried out by the medical board.
The report prepared by AIIMS recorded that there was an urgency in the matter and clinical indications suggested a pregnancy of about 20 weeks.
However, the attending medical personnel at the hospital declined to conduct an ultrasound on the ground that no identity card of the survivor was available and further insisted on conducting an ossification test on her.
She was not examined by a medical board as it was opined by the doctor concerned that a court order was required since the pregnancy exceeded 24 weeks.
Noting the contradictions and to avoid any confusion, the court passed a specific order directing AIIMS to conduct medical termination of pregnancy (MTP) of the minor rape survivor on May 5 but stressed on passing a reasoned judgment later, addressing the procedural lapses and systemic issues.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Group insolvency framework: When one is not for all
Group insolvency framework: When one is not for all

New Indian Express

timean hour ago

  • New Indian Express

Group insolvency framework: When one is not for all

The principle of separateness is no minor technicality. It lies at the heart of company law. The landmark 1896 ruling by the British House of Lords, in Salomon vs Salomon & Co, established that once incorporated, a company acquires its own legal identity, distinct from its shareholders, directors, or affiliates. This was more than a formalism; it unleashed the modern economy, shielding personal assets from business risks and allowing capital to move freely. India's Supreme Court has affirmed this on many instances, underscoring that corporate separateness is not a legal fiction to be set aside for convenience, but a deliberate construct governing credit, liability, and risk. The IBC reflects this. It treats companies as distinct legal persons, with debts, defaults, and proceedings that are all individually determined. Section 3(7) defines a 'corporate person' in individual terms—one corporation at a time. Section 5(8), which defines 'financial debt,' presupposes a direct relationship between debtor and creditor, not a complex web of inter-corporate obligations. And from Section 6 onwards, the entire resolution mechanism is built around initiating proceedings against 'a corporate debtor'—not a group, conglomerate, or an economic cluster. Of course, the notion that each company is a sealed legal island has its exceptions. Courts in India and abroad have occasionally 'pierced' the corporate veil—especially when the structure is used to commit fraud or evade the law. As early as 1933, Lord Denning remarked that courts could 'pull aside the corporate veil' to see the true actors behind it (Gilford Motor Co vs Horne). Indian courts have likewise reaffirmed that corporate identity is not a shield for misconduct. But these are the exceptions to the rule, triggered by fact-specific abuse, not tools for convenience or policy innovation. The call for a group insolvency framework stems from real-world frictions, not just theory. Consider the Srei Group, where both the parent and its subsidiary were forced into parallel insolvency proceedings, despite shared cash flows, cross-guarantees, and overlapping liabilities. This created a procedural quagmire: creditors filed claims in both forums, there was confusion over ownership of assets, and value was steadily lost. The Videocon case posed an even starker dilemma. Thirteen companies, all functionally run as one business, were admitted into distinct CIRPs—only to be later resolved collectively by judicial innovation, not legislative design.

Unsealed records in Abrego Garcia case offer few details that are new, unknown
Unsealed records in Abrego Garcia case offer few details that are new, unknown

Hindustan Times

time2 hours ago

  • Hindustan Times

Unsealed records in Abrego Garcia case offer few details that are new, unknown

A federal judge on Wednesday ordered the unsealing of several court documents in the lawsuit over Kilmar Abrego Garcia's deportation, rejecting the Trump administration's arguments that it would risk national security. U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis in Maryland issued her order after media organizations, including The Associated Press, argued the public has a right to access court records under the First Amendment. Filings unsealed so far offer little information that's new or unknown publicly. Xinis described one document as 'relatively boilerplate.' It was a request by the Trump administration to temporarily halt discovery, an early phase of a lawsuit where parties share evidence. 'It does not disclose any potentially privileged or otherwise sensitive information for which a compelling government interest outweighs the right to access,' Xinis wrote. Xinis noted that some documents were public before the court was asked to seal them the next day. Those filings contained a back-and-forth between Abrego Garcia's attorneys and the U.S. government over efforts to return him from El Salvador. Trump administration lawyers often objected to answering questions, arguing that they involve state secrets, sensitive diplomatic negotiations and other protected information. For example, the U.S. attorneys mentioned 'appropriate diplomatic discussions with El Salvador.' But they wrote that disclosing the details 'could negatively impact any outcome.' Xinis also ordered the partial release of a transcript from an April 30 court hearing. Some of it will be reacted to protect potentially classified information. Wednesday's ruling was unrelated to the Trump administration pending invocation of the state secrets privilege, a legal doctrine often used in military cases. The administration has argued that releasing information about the Abrego Garcia matter in open court — or even to the judge in private – could jeopardize national security. Xinis is yet to rule on the state secrets claim. Abrego Garcia's attorneys have argued that the Trump administration has done nothing to return the Maryland construction worker. They say the government is invoking the privilege to hide behind the misconduct of mistakenly deporting him and refusing to bring him back. Abrego Garcia's deportation violated a U.S. immigration judge's order in 2019 that shielded Abrego Garcia from expulsion to his native country. The immigration judge determined that Abrego Garcia faced likely persecution by a local Salvadoran gang that terrorized his family. Abrego Garcia's American wife sued over his deportation. Xinis ordered his return on April 4. The Supreme Court ruled on April 10 that the administration must work to bring him back. President Donald Trumptold ABC News in late April that he could retrieve Abrego Garcia with a phone call to El Salvador's president. But Trump said he wouldn't do it because Abrego Garcia is a member of the MS-13 gang, an allegation that Abrego Garcia denies and for which he was never charged.

Man abducts & rapes 16-yr-old girl
Man abducts & rapes 16-yr-old girl

Time of India

time3 hours ago

  • Time of India

Man abducts & rapes 16-yr-old girl

Bhopal: A 16-year-old minor girl was allegedly abducted and raped by an auto driver in the Nishatpura locality. The accused allegedly held her captive by locking her in a room, and subjected her to sexual assault for 3 months in the city. The incident came to light when the minor's health deteriorated, and her maternal grandmother took her to a hospital, where she was diagnosed as two months pregnant. Following the hospital's report, Nishatpura police recorded the minor's statements and registered a case against the accused on charges of rape, kidnapping, and wrongful confinement under relevant sections of BNS and the POCSO Act. The accused has since been arrested. According to the police, the 16-year-old girl, a student of class eight, resides with her maternal grandparents. Due to frequent travel by auto-rickshaw, she became acquainted with the accused. Based on the information from the hospital, police arranged for a female officer to counsel the survivor. During counselling, the minor disclosed that on March 8, the accused Anil picked her up in his auto and took her to a house in the city. There, the accused allegedly locked her in a room, threatened her, and raped her.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store