Latest news with #JusticeSharma
The Hindu
14-06-2025
- Health
- The Hindu
How should sexual abuse survivors be treated?
The story so far: The Delhi High Court recently issued a series of guidelines to streamline procedures in hospitals handling Medical Termination of Pregnancy (MTP) cases involving sexual assault survivors, after finding that miscommunication, and administrative lapses had resulted in the denial of timely medical care to a minor rape survivor. What was the case? Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma issued the guidelines while adjudicating upon the plea of a 17-year-old rape survivor who had been taken to the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), Delhi, for medical examination and termination of pregnancy. Although accompanied by a police officer following the registration of an FIR, hospital authorities initially refused to conduct an ultrasound, citing the absence of identity documents. The matter was then referred to the Child Welfare Committee (CWC), which directed the hospital to proceed with the termination and submit a status report. However, the hospital continued to insist on identity proof and age verification through an ossification test. The ultrasound was eventually carried out after a CWC member personally intervened. By that time, the minor was found to be approximately 25 weeks and 4 days pregnant. The hospital then declined to convene a medical board, contending that a court order was required as the pregnancy appeared to exceed the 24-week statutory limit prescribed under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy (MTP) Act, 1971. Following the court's intervention, a seven-member medical board was finally constituted at AIIMS to assess the feasibility of terminating the pregnancy. After conducting an ultrasound, the board determined that the gestational age of the foetus was 23 weeks and 4 days, and that the survivor was physically and mentally fit to undergo the procedure. This contradicted the hospital's earlier record, which had put the gestational age at 25 weeks and 4 days. The court noted with anguish that no explanation was provided for this discrepancy. What directions were issued to hospitals? The court observed that when an investigating officer presents a sexual assault survivor for medical examination, along with the official case file and FIR details, separate identity verification may be dispensed with. It further stressed that in cases involving minors, procedural safeguards applicable to routine diagnostic cases should not be applied rigidly or mechanically. Justice Sharma directed that in all cases where a rape or sexual assault survivor is found to be pregnant, a comprehensive medical examination must be conducted without delay. In instances where the gestational age appears to exceed 24 weeks, hospital administrations were instructed to immediately constitute a medical board to conduct the necessary examination and submit a status report to the appropriate authorities without awaiting specific court orders. Hospitals were also directed to ensure that updated Standard Operating Procedures and relevant legal guidelines are readily accessible in both Emergency and Gynaecology Departments, and that duty doctors are regularly briefed and sensitised on their obligations under the MTP Act, the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, and other binding directives issued by the Supreme Court and High Courts. The court further mandated that quarterly training programmes be organised for doctors and medical staff in coordination with legal aid bodies such as the Delhi State Legal Services Authority and the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee (DHCLSC). Each government hospital was also directed to designate a nodal officer to oversee MTP cases and related medico-legal processes, serving as a single point of contact for the CWC, investigating officers, and the courts. Additionally, consent for MTP procedures was to be obtained from the survivor or her guardian, in a language they fully comprehend, such as Hindi or English. What was the Delhi police instructed to do? The court directed the Delhi Police to ensure that investigating officers handling POCSO and sexual assault cases undergo mandatory training every six months, with a focus on MTP procedures, court orders, and coordination with medical and welfare authorities. Certificates of completion are to be duly recorded in the officers' service files. Police officers were also instructed to ensure that sexual assault survivors are presented before the concerned doctor, hospital, or medical board at the earliest opportunity, along with all requisite case files. What were the guidelines issued earlier? On April 17, Justice Sharma issued guidelines for CWCs and the DHCLSC to prevent delays in such cases, while hearing a plea involving a minor sexual assault survivor seeking termination of a pregnancy beyond 27 weeks. She directed that whenever a minor survivor with a gestational age exceeding 24 weeks is referred by the CWC to a hospital for examination or termination, the CWC must immediately notify the DHCLSC. Upon receiving such information, the DHCLSC shall promptly assess the need for legal intervention, including approaching the competent court for permission to terminate the pregnancy, so as to avoid further delay. Earlier, in January 2023, the judge mandated that during the medical examination of a sexual assault survivor, a urine pregnancy test must be conducted. If the survivor is found pregnant and is an adult seeking termination, the investigating officer must ensure that she is presented before the medical board on the same day. State governments were also ordered to ensure that medical boards are constituted in the hospitals.
Hindustan Times
07-06-2025
- Hindustan Times
Quashing FIR in minor's rape risks safety, dignity of survivor: Delhi HC
The Delhi high court has refused to quash a rape case involving a minor despite the victim's voluntary request, warning that permitting such withdrawals under the pretext of social pressures would set a dangerous precedent and embolden perpetrators to exploit victims' vulnerabilities to escape accountability. Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, in a strongly worded ruling, said that courts must not be seen as endorsing the idea that victims should withdraw genuine complaints to maintain social acceptability or preserve personal relationships, such as marriage prospects. 'To quash the present FIR, given the facts, the nature of allegations, and the ground on which quashing is sought, would gravely compromise the protected interests of society and pose a serious risk to the dignity and safety of sexual assault survivors,' the court said in its May 26 ruling, which was released later. Such a decision, the judge underscored, would send a harmful message that perpetrators of heinous crimes can coerce victims into silence by preying on their social circumstances and thereby evade the legal consequences of their actions. The FIR in question, registered under sections of the Indian Penal Code, including rape, kidnapping, intimidation, and insulting a woman's modesty, and under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (Pocso) Act, accused the man of repeatedly raping a minor girl, burning her genitalia, filming obscene videos and threatening her with acid attacks. The accused had approached the court seeking to quash the FIR, claiming that the complainant had voluntarily agreed to settle the matter and that both families had mutually resolved to not pursue any further legal action. The victim, who appeared in court, told the judge that she wished to withdraw the complaint as its pendency was jeopardising her plans to marry another person. But the court made it clear that such settlements in serious criminal cases, particularly those involving minors, cannot form the basis for extinguishing legal proceedings. The judgment said the reasons cited by the complainant reflected not free will but a 'more complex reason hidden in the background of societal pressure.' Justice Sharma noted that the FIR was not impulsively filed but was a product of 'due deliberation,' and quashing it would amount to legitimising the manipulation of victims' rights through coercion or pressure. 'One judgment, particularly in a sensitive case such as this, can set a precedent that reverberates across society. If courts were seen as supporting the view that a victim must first withdraw her complaint to be deemed 'eligible' to marry or resettle, it would perpetuate the deeply entrenched imbalance of gendered power dynamics,' it held. The court further stressed the need for a justice system that upholds survivors' dignity rather than placing the burden on them to choose between justice and social acceptance. Delhi Police, represented by additional public prosecutor Naresh Kumar Chahar, had also opposed the petition, arguing that the case involved grave allegations of sexual and physical violence and that compromise between the parties could not override the seriousness of the offence. The ruling comes just days after another coordinate bench of the high court had allowed quashing of an FIR involving online harassment of a minor girl, where the complainant had cited similar concerns. The court had directed the accused to perform community service, while also flagging the broader issue of digital abuse and the misuse of social media to exert control over victims. In contrast, justice Sharma's ruling firmly shuts the door on quashing in cases involving allegations of extreme physical and sexual violence against a minor, reinforcing the judiciary's role as a safeguard against coercive settlements that mask deeper societal pressures.
Indian Express
03-06-2025
- Politics
- Indian Express
Homes bulldozed at Delhi's Bhoomiheen Camp — minutes before HC heard petitions to stay demolition
Minutes before pleas to stay the demolition at Bhoomiheen Camp, in Southeast Delhi's Govindpuri, were heard by a vacation bench in the High Court on Monday, civic authorities had already started razing hutments. The two petitioners in the case lost their homes. When the petition was taken up, Justices Tushar Rao Gedela and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar refused to halt the Delhi Development Authority's (DDA) action while issuing notices to the authorities. The two-judge bench's refusal on Monday came days after the HC dismissed a clutch of petitions by slum dwellers against the impending eviction and demolition. Justice Dharmesh Sharma, on May 26 and May 30, had rejected the pleas. The nearly three-decades-old slum cluster was home to migrants from UP, Bihar and West Bengal, among others, the single-judge bench was told during the hearings. The inhabitants included women who worked as domestic help, labourers in factories and local shops, and others who had meagre sources of income. The petitioners had moved the court first in 2023, claiming that the DDA, in 'an arbitrary and illegal manner, proposed to demolish their jhuggi-jhopdis'. The proposal, they contended, was contrary to the Delhi Slum & JJ Rehabilitation and Relocation Policy, 2015. It was contended that the surveys for their rehabilitation were conducted contrary to the policy, 'by an obscure, outsourced agency appointed by DDA'. It was also pointed out that due processes were not followed. Justice Sharma, in the May 26 ruling against 44 dwellers who moved court, and the verdict for which was reserved last year on December 6, 2024, held that the DDA has 'substantially adhered to all prescribed procedures in surveying the JJ clusters in question'. Refusing to set aside the survey, Justice Sharma emphasised that the petitioners have 'no vested right' to rehabilitation and that the earlier court-ordered interim stay on demolition 'has not only hindered the timely execution of the rehabilitation project but also resulted in a significant escalation of public expenditure.' The court also recorded that as per the DDA, 'over Rs 835.88 crore has been expended in the process of in-situ rehabilitation of JJ dwellers of Bhoomiheen Camp,' adding that 'it cannot be overlooked that the rehabilitation process is time-sensitive, and any further extension of timelines would result in additional expenditure of valuable public funds and delay the rehabilitation of other clusters and JJ dwellers.' Appeals by two petitioners from the earlier round of litigation — Manjoor Ali and Kashmir Lal — challenging Justice Sharma's order of May 26 and May 30, respectively, were before the vacation bench on Monday. Moments before their petition was taken up, their houses were razed. The demolition action, pending the appeal, was highlighted before the division bench. It, however, refused to stay the demolition action, orally remarking that it is being undertaken in compliance with the single judge's order. DDA also told the court that the dwellings of the petitioners were demolished. The court has kept the matter next for consideration on July 7, when the rehabilitation issue is likely to be taken up.
Indian Express
07-05-2025
- Indian Express
Delhi HC reserves order on AgustaWestland middleman Christian Michel James's plea to modify bail conditions
The Delhi High Court on Wednesday reserved its order on a plea made by Christian Michel James, an alleged middleman in the AgustaWestland chopper scam case, to modify his bail conditions such as depositing Rs 5 lakh as surety and surrendering his passport. James, who was extradited from the UAE in 2018, also virtually joined the proceedings at the court of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma from jail. Michel's counsel, Aljo Joseph, told the court that since his client was a foreign national, no individual from India would come forward to stand as a surety for him and that he had no friends or family in India. 'It is next to impossible to get an Indian surety. Nobody will furnish surety for him. This condition he cannot fulfil at all,' Joseph said. 'I have applied for the passport. A UK citizen who is applying for a passport from any foreign country will take a minimum of 8-12 weeks. I cannot submit the passport as on date,' he added. Meanwhile, James said in the court that he was '10 weeks away from completing my sentence'. The Enforcement Directorate, however, said the bail conditions were 'fair and reasonable'. James was granted bail in March by Justice Sharma in the ED case against him, noting that the case 'presents an exceptional situation' where James had been in custody for over six years but the trial had 'not even commenced due to the incomplete investigation'. Justice Sharma took into consideration the fact that investigation had not been concluded, charges had not been framed, trial had not begun, and that James had already been granted bail in the related CBI case by the Supreme Court. On February 18, while granting bail to James in the 2013 CBI case, the Supreme Court also pointed to the delay in trial. In its chargesheet, the ED has alleged that James received 30 million euros (approximately Rs 225 crore) from AgustaWestland to facilitate the deal for the purchase of 12 VVIP choppers for the Indian Air Force. He was booked on money laundering charges after a complaint was lodged against him on July 3, 2014.
