Not A Mere Breach Of Contract: Telangana High Court Refuses To Quash FIR In ₹73 Crore Garment Investment Fraud Accused Not Entitled To Copies Of 'Unrelied' Upon Documents At The Stage Of Framing Of Charges Under Section 91 CrPC: Supreme Court Elected Representatives Have No Privilege To Resort To Violence; Criminal Antecedents Are Material For Bail Adjudication: Supreme Court Mere Absence Of Transport Documents Does Not Create A Presumption Of Violation Of Chhattisgarh Agricultural Cattle Preservation Act, 2004: Supreme Court Section 396 IPC | Conviction For 'Dacoity With Murder' Requires Proof That Murder Was Committed In The Course Of Dacoity: Allahabad High Court 'Developers Cannot Delay Conveyance For Eternity And Milk Additional FSI Benefits': Bombay High Court Upholds Societies' Deemed Conveyance Pre-Approval Statutory Dues Stand Extinguished Upon Approval Of Resolution Plan; GST Authorities Cannot Initiate Fresh Proceedings: Calcutta High Court Unregistered Agreement To Sell With Delivery Of Possession Is Admissible In A Suit For Specific Performance: Delhi High Court Stigmatic Order Discharging Probationer Without Inquiry Is Void For Violation Of Natural Justice: Gujarat High Court Execution Proceedings | Court Cannot Impose Arbitrary Financial Conditions Without Reason In Stay Applications: Himachal Pradesh High Court Section 528 BNSS | High Court Cannot Exercise Inherent Powers To Circumvent Statutory Bar Against Second Revision: Delhi High Court Advocate Empanelment | Restriction On Multiple Applications Is A Procedural Choice Within Employer’s Domain: Delhi High Court Acquittal Appeal | Double Presumption Of Innocence In Favour Of Accused Cannot Be Disturbed Merely Because Another View Is Possible: Gujarat High Court SC/ST Act | Offence Under Section 3(1)(g) Not Attracted If Dispossession Or Interference Is Not Due To Victim's Caste: Himachal Pradesh High Court Judicial Officer Must Maintain Distance From Practicing Advocates To Avoid Impropriety: Gujarat High Court Upholds Dismissal Section 183 BNSS | Investigating Officer Cannot Independently Record Further Statement Of Victim After Recording Before Magistrate: Karnataka High Court Non-Production Of Case Property And Missing Link Evidence In Seizure Cases Vitiates Prosecution: Himachal Pradesh High Court Employees Compensation Act | Death Due To Cardiac Arrest During Employment Is An 'Accident' Arising Out Of Stress And Strain Of Duty: J&K High Court Transfer Of Proceedings | Courts Must Issue Fresh Notice To Parties Even If They Had Appeared Before The Transferor Court: Kerala High Court Sets Aside Ex-Parte Award Section 80P(4) IT Act Does Not Deny Deduction To Regional Rural Banks As They Retain The 'Deemed Co-operative Society' Status Under Section 22 RRB Act: Madras High Court Property Purchased In Name Of Child For Family Benefit Is Not A 'Benami Transaction' Under Section 2(9) Of The 1988 Act: Madhya Pradesh High Court Person Without Caveatable Interest Cannot Challenge Will Or Seek Revocation Of Probate: Madras High Court Divorce | Cruelty Must Be Assessed By Cumulative Effect Of Matrimonial Conduct Rather Than Isolated Incidents: Orissa High Court Merely Labeling Insurance Policy As Comprehensive Does Not Create Unlimited Liability: MP High Court Order VII Rule 11 CPC | Plaint Must Be Rejected If Limitation Bar Is Apparent From Face Of Pleadings: Patna High Court Limitation Act | 'Sufficient Cause' Cannot Be Used To Revive Stale Or Dead Claims By State: Orissa High Court Quashes Order Condoning 53-Year Delay Employee Cannot Remain Dormant Like Rip Van Winkle & Awaken At Convenience: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dismisses Stale Service Plea With ₹25K Cost Section 29 NDPS Act | Mere Allegation Of 'Cooperation' Without Specific Overt Acts Cannot Sustain Charge Of Conspiracy: Rajasthan High Court Forest Land Status Does Not Extinguish Private Civil Title: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Decree For Possession Once Admitted In Evidence, Document Cannot Be De-Marked On Grounds Of Insufficiency Of Stamp Duty: Telangana High Court Section 190 BNSS | Mere Presence In Unlawful Assembly With Active Intent Renders Member Vicariously Liable For Homicidal Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court Contributory Negligence Under Motor Vehicles Act Cannot Be Inferred Without Cogent Evidence: Telangana High Court Enhances Compensation Motor Vehicles Act | Section 164 Compensation Of Rs. 5 Lakhs Applicable Even To Pending Claims Arising Prior To 2019 Amendment: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consumer Protection Act | Builder Liable To Pay Interest For Delayed Possession Despite Force Majeure Plea If Agreement Executed Post-Outbreak: State Commission

Blacklisting of hospitals for unnecessary hysterectomies: Supreme Court orders stringent action by states and UTs

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


April 2023: In a significant judgement, the Supreme Court of India has directed all the States and Union Territories to adopt the guidelines formulated by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare (MoHFW) to prevent unnecessary hysterectomies. The judgement was passed in the case of Kawalpreet Kaur v. Union of India, in which the petitioner had sought directions to curb the practice of unnecessary hysterectomies in India.

The Supreme Court of India has directed all states and union territories to adopt guidelines framed by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare (MoHFW) to prevent unnecessary hysterectomies within three months. The apex court also directed the states and union territories to implement the guidelines without delay and ensure that all public and private hospitals within their jurisdictions are aware of the guidelines' existence and importance.

The guidelines were framed by the MoHFW in 2022 after reports emerged of unnecessary hysterectomies being performed on women in several states. The court was hearing a public interest litigation (PIL) filed by an NGO, seeking action against such practices.

The court observed that "the guidelines are a necessary first step towards addressing the problem of unnecessary hysterectomies," and directed the MoHFW to engage with all states and union territories to ensure that the guidelines are adopted expeditiously.

The court also directed the formation of a National Hysterectomy Monitoring Committee, as proposed under the guidelines, within 4 to 6 weeks, and advised the states to expedite the formation of state and district-level committees to properly monitor and supervise the implementation of the guidelines.

The court also directed the states to take stringent action for blacklisting hospitals once it is detected that any unnecessary hysterectomy was carried out or that the procedure was taken recourse to without the informed consent of the patient. Necessary action should be taken in accordance with the law, the court said.

The petitioner had urged the court to extend the requirement of certification by at least two doctors for hysterectomies performed on women below the age of forty years, as mandated by the Ayushman Bharat Pradhan Mantri Jan Arogya Yojana, to other cases as well. However, the court accepted the submission of the Additional Solicitor General that a considered decision will be taken by the Union of India once adequate data is available.

Kawalpreet Kaur v. Union of India

[gview file="https://lawyer-e-news.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/05-Apr-2023-NARENDRA-GUPTA-Vs-UIO.pdf"]

Latest Legal News