Section 9 A&C Act Relief Available Until Award Is Actually Enforced, Even After It Becomes Enforceable: Telangana High Court Matrimonial Litigations Must Not Degenerate Into Contests Of Mutual Humiliation By Weaponising Private Images: Delhi High Court Unarmed Witnesses’ Inaction Against Armed Assailants Justified By Instinct Of Self-Preservation; Testimony Cannot Be Discarded: Allahabad High Court Ocular Evidence Outweighs Motive: Andhra Pradesh High Court Upholds Murder Conviction Based On Reliable Eyewitness Testimony Arrest Illegal If Written 'Grounds Of Arrest' Not Furnished To Accused; Communication Of Mere 'Reasons' Insufficient: Bombay High Court Absence Of Territorial Jurisdiction No Ground To Quash FIR At Threshold If Allegations Disclose Cognizable Offence: Calcutta High Court Proof Of Demand Is Sine Qua Non For PC Act Conviction; Voice Recordings Inadmissible Without Sec 65-B Certificate: Chhattisgarh HC Section 91 IEA | Disposition Of Immovable Property Cannot Be Proved By Oral Evidence If Written Document Not Produced: Delhi High Court NRC Legacy Data Extracts Inadmissible Without Section 65B Certificate; PAN Card & EPIC Not Proof Of Citizenship: Gauhati High Court Testimony Of Injured Witness Entitled To Great Weight; Minor Contradictions Due To Lapse Of Memory Cannot Discard Prosecution Case: Himachal Pradesh High Court Section 164 CrPC Statement Recorded Without Procedural Safeguards Or 'Cooling-Off' Period Not A Valid Confession: Jharkhand High Court Anticipatory Bail Cannot Be Denied Merely Because Investigation Is At A Nascent Stage If Custodial Interrogation Is Not Indispensable: Telangana High Court Actual Pay Drawn During Last 10 Months Must Be Basis For Pension Calculation, Regardless Of Notional Pay In Parent Bank: Punjab & Haryana High Court Kerala High Court Remands Teacher Seniority Dispute For Fresh Consideration To Verify If Senior Teacher Relinquished Promotion Claim Receipt Of DNA Report After Testimony Doesn't Automatically Confer Right To Recall Witness For Further Cross-Examination: Madhya Pradesh High Court Possession Of 'Bhang' Not An Offence Under NDPS Act, Specific Definition Excludes It: Jharkhand High Court Acquits Man Trial Court Cannot Reject Request For Handwriting Expert Merely Because Signatures Are On Photocopies: Punjab & Haryana High Court

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