LI Network
Published on: 19 August 2023 at 17:18 IST
The Madras High Court has underscored that medical professionals are not required to demand the disclosure of the names of minors seeking medical termination of pregnancy resulting from consensual sexual activity.
A specialized bench comprising Justices N Anand Venkatesh and Sunder Mohan, constituted specifically to address cases related to the Protection of Children from Sexual Offence Act (POCSO Act), referenced a prior Supreme Court judgment in the case of X vs Principal Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department.
This Supreme Court ruling had explicitly stated that doctors should refrain from insisting on the names of minors who approach them for medical termination of pregnancy.
The apex court had recognized that adolescents and their guardians might be apprehensive about mandatory reporting, fearing entanglement in legal proceedings. Insisting on divulging names could potentially compel them to seek help from unqualified individuals, increasing the risk associated with medical termination of pregnancy.
The Madras High Court’s order, issued on August 14, firmly stated, “It is clear from the above that where a minor approaches a registered medical practitioner for medical termination of pregnancy arising out of a consensual sexual activity, it is not necessary to insist for the disclosure of the name of the minor in the report that is normally given under Section 19(1) of the POCSO Act.”
The bench, consisting of Justices Venkatesh and Mohan, thus directed the principal chief secretary of the State to address the matter and establish a “standard operating procedure” to adhere strictly to the Supreme Court’s judgment.
During the preceding hearing, the High Court had instructed the Tamil Nadu Director General of Police (DGP) to assess the number of pending cases involving minors in courts and Juvenile Justice Boards across the State related to consensual sexual relationships. The court had also indicated its intent to quash cases that were determined to be against the best interests of the minors involved.
In response, the DGP informed the Court that a total of 111 such cases had been identified. These cases were either under investigation or had reached a stage where investigations were completed, and the final report awaited filing in the respective jurisdictional court.
The Court has stipulated that the police authorities should engage with the parents of the minors. In cases deemed suitable for dismissal and with parental consent, the court will quash all legal proceedings.
This specialized bench was established following an April order by the then acting Chief Justice T Raja. The order was prompted by a recommendation from retired Justice PN Prakash and Justice Venkatesh, who were presiding over a habeas corpus petition filed by the father of a minor girl.
According to the petition, the girl had undergone a prohibited ‘two-finger test‘ and was subsequently placed in a state-run shelter by the Child Welfare Committee.
This action was taken after a video circulated on social media depicting one of her classmates placing a thali (mangalsutra) around her neck.