Custodial Death | Pendency Of Criminal Trial No Bar For Awarding Compensation Under Public Law Remedy: Gauhati High Court Suit For Possession Under Section 6 Specific Relief Act Barred If Filed Beyond Six Months Of Dispossession: Madras High Court Subsequent Purchaser Is Representative Of Judgment Debtor, Separate Suit Challenging Execution Sale Barred Under Section 47 CPC: Kerala High Court Statutory Bail Restrictions Melt Down When Pre-Trial Detention Is Prolonged & Trial Is Unlikely To Conclude Soon: Delhi High Court Failure To Apprise Accused Of Right Under Section 50 NDPS Act Vitiates Search & Recovery: J&K & Ladakh High Court Section 12(5) Arbitration Act Inapplicable To Proceedings Commenced Before 2015 Amendment; Executing Court Can't Apply Neutrality Norms Retrospectively: Punjab & Haryana High Court Banks Can Share Sale Proceeds Of Secured Assets Outside Liquidation Estate With Homebuyers Under Compromise Agreement: Kerala High Court Private Rights Must Yield To Public Interest: Andhra Pradesh High Court Directs Removal Of Encroachments On Public Road Review Jurisdiction Cannot Be Invoked To Re-Agitate Factual Disputes Or Seek Re-Hearing On Merits: Allahabad High Court Recovery Under Section 27 Evidence Act Vitiated If Police Already Present At Spot Before Arrival Of Panch Witnesses: Bombay High Court Mere Non-Compliance Or Delay In Procedure Under Section 52A NDPS Act Is An Irregularity, Not An Illegality Entitling Accused To Bail: Calcutta High Court Recovery Of Weapon Used In Commission Of Offence Not A Sine Qua Non For Conviction If Ocular Evidence Is Corroborated: Allahabad High Court Seized Vehicles Shouldn't Be Kept Idle To Rot In Police Stations, Utility Vanishes Due To Stagnation: Karnataka High Court Or 39 CPC | Trial Court Erred In Dismissing Injunction Application Despite Respondent's 'No Objection' To Restraining Share Transfer: Gauhati High Court Issuing NBW Merely For Absence Of Accused Already On Bail Is Improper; Liberty Cannot Be Dealt With Lightly: Orissa High Court 138 NI | Expert Examination Of Disputed Documents Essential For Just Adjudication If Complainant Denies Handwriting & Signatures: Rajasthan High Court Order 41 Rule 27 CPC Cannot Be Invoked To Fill Lacunae In Evidence If Party Voluntarily Closed Evidence In Trial Court: Delhi 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