According to the petition before Kerala High Court , the enforcement of this protocol has adversely impacted sexual assault survivors, resulting in prolonged waiting periods for examinations by female gynecologists in understaffed hospitals.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
Kochi: A group of gynaecologists in Kerala today (29 Feb) has approached the High Court challenging the existing mandate that dictates only women gynaecologists can conduct examinations on sexual assault survivors. This legal challenge specifically targets Clause 6 of the Kerala Medico-legal Protocol for Examination of Survivor of Sexual Offences, established in 2019, and its subsequent amendment in April 2023.
The crux of the petitioners’ argument lies in the assertion that the current mandate, which restricts the examination of sexual assault survivors solely to gynaecologists, directly contradicts the broader legal provisions outlined in Section 27(2) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO Act), and Section 164A of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). These sections allow “any registered medical practitioner” to conduct such examinations, thereby not limiting the responsibility exclusively to gynaecologists.
The petitioners have raised concerns over the practical implications of this mandate, highlighting the undue pressure it places on already overburdened women gynaecologists in hospitals. They argue that this specialization-focused approach has led to significant delays in the examination of sexual assault survivors, thereby compromising the quality of care and support these individuals receive. The plea emphasizes,
“Therefore clearly, entrusting the responsibility of conducting medico-legal examination to a certain kind of specialists has proven to be counterproductive to the actual object sought to be attained by the State and has also resulted in compromising and prejudicing the even otherwise stressed obstetrics specialty.”
The matter will be considered next on March 4.
The petitioners further argue that the exclusive burden placed on gynaecologists is not only illegal but also improper, unreasonable, and arbitrary. They assert that all registered medical practitioners who meet the criteria set out in Section 53(2)(b) of the CrPC should be capable of conducting medical examinations as stipulated in Section 164A of the CrPC.
This legal challenge sheds light on the complexities and challenges inherent in the medico-legal response to sexual assault cases. It underscores the need for a balanced approach that respects the legal rights of survivors while ensuring that medical examinations are conducted promptly and by qualified professionals, irrespective of their specialization in gynaecology. The outcome of this case could have significant implications for the protocols surrounding the medical examination of sexual assault survivors in Kerala and potentially beyond.
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
