Order VIII Rules 3 & 5 CPC | Silence Is Admission: State’s Failure To Specifically Deny Hiring Amounts To Acceptance: JK HC Mere Entry, Abuse Or Assault Is Not Civil Contempt – Willfulness And Dispossession Must Be Clearly Proved: Bombay High Court Magistrate Cannot Shut Eyes To Final Report After Cognizance – Supplementary Report Must Be Judicially Considered Before Framing Charges: Allahabad High Court Examination-in-Chief Alone Cannot Sustain Conviction Amid Serious Doubts: Delhi High Court Upholds Acquittal in Grievous Hurt Case Employees Cannot Pick Favourable Terms and Reject the Rest: Bombay High Court Upholds SIDBI’s Cut-Off Date for Pension to CPF Optees Cannot Reclaim Absolute Ownership After Letting Your Declaration Suit Fail: AP High Court Enforces Finality in Partition Appeal Death Due to Fat Embolism and Delayed Treatment Is Not Culpable Homicide: Orissa High Court Converts 30-Year-Old 304 Part-I Conviction to Grievous Hurt Fabricated Lease Cannot Be Sanctified by Consolidation Entry: Orissa High Court Dismisses 36-Year-Old Second Appeal Rules of the Game Were Never Changed: Delhi High Court Upholds CSIR’s Power to Prescribe Minimum Threshold in CASE-2023 Resignation Does Not Forfeit Earned Pension: Calcutta High Court Declares Company Superannuation Benefit as ‘Wages’ Under Law Fraud Vitiates Everything—Stranger Can File Independent Suit Against Compromise Decree: Bombay High Court Refuses to Reject 49-Year-Old Challenge at Threshold Mere Long Possession By One Co-Owner Does Not Destroy The Co-Ownership Right Of The Other: Madras High Court State Cannot Hide Behind An Illegal Undertaking: Punjab & Haryana High Court Questions Denial Of Retrospective Regularization Sentence Cannot Be Reduced to Two Months for Four Life-Threatening Stab Wounds: Supreme Court Restores 3-Year RI in Attempt to Murder Case Suspicion, However Grave, Cannot Substitute Proof: Apex Court Reaffirms Limits of Section 106 IEA Accused at the Time of the Statement Was Not in the Custody of the Police - Discovery Statement Held Inadmissible Under Section 27: Supreme Court Failure to Explain What Happened After ‘Last Seen Together’ Becomes an Additional Link: Supreme Court Strengthens Section 106 Evidence Act Doctrine Suicide in a Pact Is Conditional Upon Mutual Participation — Survivor’s Resolve Reinforces the Act: Supreme Court Affirms Conviction Under Section 306 IPC Participation in Draw Does Not Cure Illegality: Supreme Court Rejects Estoppel in Arbitrary Flat Allotment Case Nepotism and Self-Aggrandizement Are Anathema to a Democratic System: Supreme Court Quashes Allotment of Super Deluxe Flats by Government Employees’ Welfare Society Liberty Is Not Absolute When It Becomes a Threat to Society: Supreme Court Cancels Bail of Alleged ₹6.5 Crore Fraud Mastermind Magistrate’s Power Is Limited — Sessions Court May Yet Try the Case: Supreme Court Corrects High Court’s Misconception in ₹6.5 Crore Fraud Bail Order Dacoity Cannot Be Presumed, It Must Be Proved: Allahabad High Court Acquits Villagers After 43 Years, Citing ‘Glaring Lapses’ in Prosecution Case When the Judge Signs with the Prosecutor, Justice Is Already Compromised: MP High Court Quashes Tainted Medical College Enquiry Strict Rules Of Evidence Do Not Apply To Proceedings Before The Family Court: Kerala High Court Upholds Wife’s Claim For Gold And Money Commission Workers Cannot Claim Status of Civil Servants: Gujarat High Court Declines Regularization of Physically Challenged Case-Paper Operators Non-Wearing of Helmet Had a Direct Nexus with Fatal Head Injuries  : Madras High Court Upholds 25% Contributory Negligence for Helmet Violation Only a ‘Person Aggrieved’ Can Prosecute Defamation – Political Party Must Be Properly Represented: Karnataka High Court Quashes Case Against Rahul Gandhi

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