The Allahabad High Court has struck down a condition under Uttar Pradesh’s Rani Lakshmi Bai Mahila Evam Bal Samman Kosh Scheme, 2015, that required an injury report indicating penetrative sexual assault for financial assistance. The Court directed the State authorities to release ₹3 lakh to a minor girl within ten days, holding that the absence of such a report cannot automatically disqualify a victim from rehabilitation assistance.
Background
The case arose from an alleged sexual assault on an eight-year-old girl on January 28, 2024, in Jaunpur district. An FIR was registered on March 7, 2024, invoking Sections 5(m) and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, among other provisions.
During the medical examination on March 8, 2024, consent was not given for the specific examination relating to penetrative sexual assault. Consequently, the required injury report was not prepared. Although the police subsequently filed a charge-sheet under the relevant POCSO provisions, the District Steering Committee rejected the compensation claim because the report was unavailable.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Saral Srivastava and Justice Garima Prashad delivering the judgment, examined whether the documentary requirement was consistent with the scheme’s rehabilitative purpose and Article 14 of the Constitution, which guarantees equality before the law.
The Court observed,
“A procedural safeguard may assist the authority in identifying a claim; it cannot be converted into a barrier which excludes an otherwise eligible victim for reasons unrelated to the object of the Scheme.”
It further emphasised that medical evidence may support an allegation but that penetrative sexual assault does not necessarily produce visible physical injuries. The Bench also considered the legal protection afforded to consent during medical examinations.
The judgment stated,
“Where the report is unavailable because consent to the relevant examination was not given, the State cannot treat the exercise of a choice protected by procedural law as a ground for withholding the benefit under the Scheme.”
The Court held that making the report indispensable arbitrarily excluded otherwise eligible victims and violated Article 14. It therefore struck down the requirement, while allowing available medical records to be considered.
The High Court quashed the District Steering Committee’s rejection order and allowed the writ petition. It directed the State respondents to release the full ₹3 lakh assistance within ten days of the judgment, with the money deposited in the minor’s protected bank account or handled through another lawful arrangement safeguarding her interests.
Case Details
- Case Title: Victim X v. State of U.P. and 2 Others
- Case Number: Writ-C No. 16193 of 2026
- Judges: Justice Saral Srivastava and Justice Garima Prashad
- Decision Date: October 23, 2026
