Renewal Is Not Extension Unless Terms Are Fixed in Same Deed: Bombay High Court Strikes Down ₹64.75 Lakh Stamp Duty Demand on Nine-Year Lease Fraud Vitiates All Solemn Acts—Appointment Void Ab Initio Even After 27 Years: Allahabad High Court Litigants Cannot Be Penalised For Attending Criminal Proceedings Listed On Same Day: Delhi High Court Restores Civil Suit Dismissed For Default Limited Permissive Use Confers No Right to Expand Trademark Beyond Agreed Territories: Bombay High Court Enforces Consent Decree in ‘New Indian Express’ Trademark Dispute Assam Rifles Not Entitled to Parity with Indian Army Merely Due to Similar Duties: Delhi High Court Dismisses Equal Pay Petition Conspiracy Cannot Be Presumed from Illicit Relationship: Bombay High Court Acquits Wife, Affirms Conviction of Paramour in Murder Case Bail in NDPS Commercial Quantity Cases Cannot Be Granted Without Satisfying Twin Conditions of Section 37: Delhi High Court Cancels Bail Orders Terming Them ‘Perversely Illegal’ Article 21 Rights Not Absolute In Cases Threatening National Security: Supreme Court Sets Aside Bail Granted In Jnaneshwari Express Derailment Case A Computer Programme That Solves a Technical Problem Is Not Barred Under Section 3(k): Madras High Court Allows Patent for Software-Based Data Lineage System Premature Auction Without 30-Day Redemption Violates Section 176 and Bank’s Own Terms: Orissa High Court Quashes Canara Bank’s Gold Loan Sale Courts Can’t Stall Climate-Resilient Public Projects: Madras High Court Lifts Status Quo on Eco Park, Pond Works at Race Club Land No Cross-Examination, No Conviction: Gujarat High Court Quashes Customs Penalty for Violating Principles of Natural Justice ITAT Was Wrong in Disregarding Statements Under Oath, But Additions Unsustainable Without Corroborative Evidence: Madras High Court Deduction Theory Under Old Land Acquisition Law Has No Place Under 2013 Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court Enhances Compensation for Metro Land Acquisition UIT Cannot Turn Around After Issuing Pattas, It's Estopped Now: Rajasthan High Court Private Doctor’s Widow Eligible for COVID Insurance if Duty Proven: Supreme Court Rebukes Narrow Interpretation of COVID-Era Orders Smaller Benches Cannot Override Constitution Bench Authority Under The Guise Of Clarification: Supreme Court Criticises Judicial Indiscipline Public Premises Act, 1971 | PP Act Overrides State Rent Control Laws for All Tenancies; Suhas Pophale Overruled: Supreme Court Court Has No Power To Reduce Sentence Below Statutory Minimum Under NDPS Act: Supreme Court Denies Relief To Young Mother Convicted With 23.5 kg Ganja Non-Compliance With Section 52-A Is Not Per Se Fatal: Supreme Court Clarifies Law On Sampling Procedure Under NDPS Act MBA Degree Doesn’t Feed the Stomach: Delhi High Court Says Wife’s Qualification No Ground to Deny Maintenance

Delhi HC to Delhi Govt. Eight weeks to take a decision on the recommendations of the DCPCR

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin

D.D: 27-07-2022

The Delhi High Court has given the Delhi government eight weeks to decide on the recommendations of the Delhi Commission for the Protection of Child Rights (DCPCR) to ban sex-selective surgeries on intersex infants and children except in life-threatening situations [Srishti Madurai Educational Research Foundation v. Govt. NCT of Delhi and Others].

Children born with both male and female sex organs are referred to as intersex infants.

An NGO, Srishti Madurai Educational Research Foundation, filed a public interest litigation (PIL) petition. A division bench composed of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad issued the directives while dismissing the petition.

The petitioner requested that the Court issue guidelines specifying the conditions under which intersex infants and children may undergo medical surgery.

The DCPCR reportedly submitted a comprehensive report to the Delhi government on the matter, but the government has yet to make a decision.

The State of Delhi's attorney requested more time to make the appropriate decision.

The judge gave the State eight weeks to respond and then ruled on the plea.

"The learned counsel for the Government of NCT of Delhi (GNCTD) makes a very reasonable argument that GNCTD should be given time to make an appropriate decision regarding the Delhi Commission for the Protection of Child Rights' recommendations" (DCPCR). Accordingly, he requests and is granted eight weeks to make a decision on the recommendations made by DCPCR," the Court stated in its order.

SRISHTI MADURAI EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH FOUNDATION

VERSUS

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS.

Download Judgment

[gview file="http://lawyer-e-news.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/27-07-2022.pdf"]

Latest Legal News

  • by Admin
    12 December 2025 1:37 PM
Courts Can’t Stall Climate-Resilient Public Projects: Madras High Court Lifts Status Quo on Eco Park, Pond Works at Race Club Land
  • by Admin
    12 December 2025 1:36 PM
Premature Auction Without 30-Day Redemption Violates Section 176 and Bank’s Own Terms: Orissa High Court Quashes Canara Bank’s Gold Loan Sale
  • by Admin
    12 December 2025 12:22 PM
A Computer Programme That Solves a Technical Problem Is Not Barred Under Section 3(k): Madras High Court Allows Patent for Software-Based Data Lineage System
  • by Admin
    12 December 2025 12:21 PM
Deduction Theory Under Old Land Acquisition Law Has No Place Under 2013 Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court Enhances Compensation for Metro Land Acquisition
  • by Admin
    12 December 2025 12:21 PM
UIT Cannot Turn Around After Issuing Pattas, It's Estopped Now: Rajasthan High Court
  • by Admin
    12 December 2025 9:23 AM
Bail in NDPS Commercial Quantity Cases Cannot Be Granted Without Satisfying Twin Conditions of Section 37: Delhi High Court Cancels Bail Orders Terming Them ‘Perversely Illegal’