MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

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