In a landmark decision, the Delhi High Court has mandated that all government and private hospitals provide free medical treatment to survivors of rape, acid attacks, and cases under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. This ruling, issued by a division bench comprising Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Amit Sharma, aims to remove financial barriers that survivors face when seeking urgent medical care.
The court’s decision addresses the persistent challenges survivors encounter in accessing necessary medical services, despite existing legal provisions under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) and guidelines from the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare. The bench observed that many victims still struggle to obtain free treatment, underscoring the urgent need for systemic reforms in healthcare institutions.
๐๐ฒ๐ ๐๐ถ๐ฟ๐ฒ๐ฐ๐๐ถ๐๐ฒ๐ ๐ณ๐ฟ๐ผ๐บ ๐๐ต๐ฒ ๐ฅ๐๐น๐ถ๐ป๐ด:
๐๐ผ๐บ๐ฝ๐ฟ๐ฒ๐ต๐ฒ๐ป๐๐ถ๐๐ฒ ๐ง๐ฟ๐ฒ๐ฎ๐๐บ๐ฒ๐ป๐: The term “treatment” includes first aid, diagnosis, inpatient and outpatient services, diagnostic tests, surgeries, and physical and mental counselling.
๐๐บ๐บ๐ฒ๐ฑ๐ถ๐ฎ๐๐ฒ ๐๐ฎ๐ฟ๐ฒ: Hospitals must not deny treatment to any survivor and should provide immediate medical attention without requiring identification proof in emergency situations.
๐๐๐ฎ๐ฟ๐ฒ๐ป๐ฒ๐๐ ๐๐ฎ๐บ๐ฝ๐ฎ๐ถ๐ด๐ป๐: Medical facilities are required to display signage informing survivors of their right to free treatment for sexual assault cases.
๐๐ผ๐ป๐ด-๐๐ฒ๐ฟ๐บ ๐ฆ๐๐ฝ๐ฝ๐ผ๐ฟ๐: The ruling emphasizes the need for ongoing medical assistance, including psychological support and family counselling for survivors.
This decision was prompted by a specific case involving a 16-year-old survivor who faced delays in receiving treatment after being assaulted by her father. The court’s ruling serves as a powerful message of compassion and support for survivors, ensuring they receive not only justice but also essential care to rebuild their lives.
As society grapples with the aftermath of such traumatic experiences, this decision marks a significant step towards creating a supportive framework for those affected by sexual violence.
Sign Up on mentblue here: 
And check out each of mentblue offerings here:
In My Preferred Transformation and Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. M/s Faridabad Implements Pvt. Ltd., the Supreme Court delved into the interplay between the Limitation Act, 1963, and the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (ACA). The case centered on whether the benefit of Section 4 of the Limitation Actโwhich extends deadlines when courts are closedโapplies to the 30-day condonable period under Section 34(3) of the ACA. The appellants filed an applic...
On January 10, 2025, Congress leader Rahul Gandhi appeared virtually before a Pune court in connection with a defamation case filed by Satyaki Savarkar, the grandnephew of Vinayak Damodar Savarkar. The case pertains to alleged derogatory remarks made by Gandhi about the Hindutva ideologue during a speech in London in 2023.
On January 9, 2025, the Supreme Court of India dismissed review petitions challenging its October 2023 verdict, which declined to grant legal recognition to same-sex marriages. The five-judge bench, comprising Justices B.R. Gavai, Surya Kant, B.V. Nagarathna, P.S. Narasimha, and Dipankar Datta, considered the review pleas in chambers and found no apparent error in the original judgment, concluding that no interference was warranted.