The Delhi High Court has issued clear directions that hospitals cannot demand identity proof from minor rape victims seeking diagnostic tests or ultrasound in court-ordered Medical Termination of Pregnancy (MTP) cases.

In a significant ruling, Justice Swarn Kanta Sharma emphasised that hospitals and medical institutions must adopt a sensitive and responsive approach in cases of sexual assault, especially those involving minor girls. The Court emphasised that such cases require specialised handling and rigid protocols should not hinder timely medical care.

Read also: Supreme Court: Divorced Wife Entitled to Maintenance Reflecting Her Marital Standard of Living

"When the investigating officer (IO) presents the victim with the case file and FIR details, the requirement of separate identity documents can be waived," the Court said.

The Court highlighted that standard identity verification protocols may be valid in routine pregnancy cases to ensure compliance with the PC and PNDT Act, but these should not apply when minor rape victims are produced for medical examination. This is because the presence of the IO and the documents are sufficient for identification.

Read also: Supreme Court of India Dismisses Next Radio’s Petition Against Copyright Rule 29(4)

The High Court gave detailed directions to ensure clarity and uniformity in handling such sensitive cases:

• There should be a comprehensive medical examination: Hospitals and doctors should immediately conduct a thorough medical examination if a rape victim is found to be pregnant.
• Investigating Officer should understand his responsibility: The investigating officer should identify the victim and provide the necessary documents while producing the victim before medical officers.
• No need for identity card now: If the victim is produced under the orders of the investigating officer or Court/CWC, hospitals should not demand identity card for conducting ultrasound or necessary diagnostic procedures.
• Medical Board: If the pregnancy is more than 24 weeks, a medical board should be constituted immediately without waiting for directions from the Court.
• Consent in local language: Consent for MTP should be recorded in a language (such as Hindi or English) that the victim or guardian can understand.
• Updated SOPs: Hospitals should ensure the availability of updated standard operating procedures (SOPs) and legal guidelines in emergency and gynaecology departments, and regularly brief duty doctors about obligations under the MTP Act, POCSO Act and guidelines issued by high courts.
• Training: Doctors, medical staff and legal officers should undergo quarterly training programmes in collaboration with DSLSA/DHCLSC to better handle such cases.
• Nodal officer: Every government hospital should appoint a nodal officer trained in MTP and medico-legal procedures for sexual assault cases.
• Standardised forms: Standardised forms for MTP request, consent, ultrasound request and medical opinion should be made available in both Hindi and English.
• Compulsory IO training: Delhi Police should ensure that IOs handling POCSO and sexual assault cases receive mandatory training every six months, specifically focusing on MTP procedures.

Read also: Law student Sharmistha Panoli sent to 14 days judicial custody over controversial video on Operation

Background of the case

The case involved a 17-year-old minor rape victim who sought MTP, but the hospital refused on the ground that a judicial order was required before medical assessment. The initial report of the AIIMS Medical Board indicated an urgent need, with clinical symptoms indicating a pregnancy of around 20 weeks. However, the hospital refused an ultrasound as the victim did not have identity proof and insisted on undergoing ossification tests.

The Court later passed a specific order, directing AIIMS to conduct the MTP on May 5, subject to a reasoned decision addressing procedural gaps and systemic issues.

Emphasising the need for sensitivity and prompt action, the Court warned, “Each day of delay in conducting MTP for such victims increases the potential danger to their lives.”

Justice Sharma’s order is an important reminder of the need for empathy, efficiency and legal compliance when dealing with victims of sexual assault, particularly minors. The judgment is aimed at ensuring that victims are not subjected to unnecessary procedural hurdles at what is an extremely distressing time.

Title: MINOR S (THR. MOTHER M) v. STATE & ANR

Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. Anwesh Madhukar (DHCLSC), Ms. Prachi Nirwan Mr. Ishat Singh Mr. Pranjal Shekhar, Advocates

Counsel for Respondents: Mr. Amol Sinha, ASC (Crl.), Mr. Ashvini Kumar and Mr. Kshitiz Garg, Advocates; Mr. Satya Ranjan Swain (Panel Counsel-AIIMS)