Law Does Not Countenance Resurrection Of Stale Claims Through Inventive Drafting: Karnataka High Court Rejects 20-Year-Old Partition Dispute CPC Provisions Cannot Be Used to Transfer Consumer Complaints Across States: NCDRC Invokes Section 62 to End Forum-Shifting Ordeal in Nirmal Spinning Mills Case FSSA Provisions Prevail Over PFA Act In Cases Of Overlapping Jurisdiction, Prosecution Under Old Act Impermissible: J&K High Court Motive Pales Into Significance When Direct Ocular Evidence Establishes Crime; Enmity Is A Double-Edged Sword: Allahabad High Court Plaintiff Cannot Succeed Merely On Weakness Of Defence; Initial Burden To Prove Claim Rests On Claimant: Madras High Court Witness Threats Noted By Higher Courts Disentitle Convict To Suspension Of Sentence: Gujarat High Court Family Court Orders Must Be Enforced Immediately, Pendency Of Applications No Excuse For Disobedience: Delhi High Court 'Fraud And Justice Never Dwell Together': Karnataka High Court Reverses Order To Grant Land Based On Fabricated Records Development Authority Competent To Sanction Land Use Conversion From Residential To Nursing Home If Permitted Under Master Plan & Zoning Regulations: Allahabad High Court Notification Changing Import Policy From 'Free' To 'Restricted' Operative Only From Exact Time Of Publication In E-Gazette: Delhi High Court On Name Of Protection of the Complainer Excluding Relevant Defence Evidence in Sexual Offences Trials May Breach Fair Trial Rights: UK Supreme Court Boundaries In Sale Deed Prevail Over Discrepancy In Property Description; Adverse Possession Begins From Date Of Hostile Notice: Punjab & Haryana HC Supreme Court of UK Upholds HMRC Decision: Professional Fees Incurred by Investment Holding Company Are Capital Expenditure Criminal Law Cannot Be Used To Silence Citizens Questioning Legality Of Police Action: Madras High Court Quashes Obstruction Case Punjab & Haryana High Court Directs Centre To Treat Ashok Khemka As Empaneled For Future Assignments, Says Denying Relaxation Granted To Peers Is Discriminatory Section 34 Court Cannot Substitute Arbitrator’s Plausible View With Its Own; Not Bound By Technical Rules Of Evidence Act: Madras High Court Article 227 Jurisdiction Cannot Be Invoked To Reopen Decrees Finalized Four Decades Ago: Allahabad High Court Dismisses Challenge To 1985 Order Daughter Has No Right To Inherit Agricultural Land If Succession Opened Before 2005 HSA Amendment: Delhi High Court Rejects Plaint Indian Trust Act Inapplicable To Public Religious Endowments; Sale Of Charity Property Without HR&CE Commissioner's Permission Void: Madras High Court Supreme Court Clarifies Status of Collateral Warranties Under Construction Contracts FIR Quashed Against Newsclick: PMLA Proceedings Cannot Stand Alone Without A Predicate Offence, Rules Delhi High Court Assessee Claiming TDS Exemption On "Reimbursement" To Non-Residents Must Obtain Mandatory Tax Determination Under Section 195(2): Madras High Court

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 sayum
    20 June 2026 6:57 AM
Motive Pales Into Significance When Direct Ocular Evidence Establishes Crime; Enmity Is A Double-Edged Sword: Allahabad High Court
  • by sayum
    20 June 2026 6:57 AM
FSSA Provisions Prevail Over PFA Act In Cases Of Overlapping Jurisdiction, Prosecution Under Old Act Impermissible: J&K High Court
  • by sayum
    20 June 2026 6:55 AM
Assessee Claiming TDS Exemption On "Reimbursement" To Non-Residents Must Obtain Mandatory Tax Determination Under Section 195(2): Madras High Court
  • by sayum
    20 June 2026 6:54 AM
FIR Quashed Against Newsclick: PMLA Proceedings Cannot Stand Alone Without A Predicate Offence, Rules Delhi High Court
  • by sayum
    20 June 2026 6:50 AM
Supreme Court Clarifies Status of Collateral Warranties Under Construction Contracts
  • by sayum
    20 June 2026 6:49 AM
Indian Trust Act Inapplicable To Public Religious Endowments; Sale Of Charity Property Without HR&CE Commissioner's Permission Void: Madras High Court