Keywords: termination of pregnancy , POCSO Act , minor girl , name
The Madras High Court has recently noted that registered doctors are not mandated to disclose the name of the minor while terminating their pregnancy arising from consensual sexual activity while preparing a report under Section 19 (1) of the POCSO Act. The Court also added the reasoning that this maybe due to the minor and their guardian not desiring to pursue the case anymore due to lack of interest or any other reason.
The Division Bench of Justices Anand Venkatesh and Sunder Mohan who were given the task of monitoring the implementation of the provisions of Protection Of Children From Sexual Offences Act ( POCSO) Act and the Juvenile Justice Act thus ordered the Principal Chief Secretary to address the current issue and lead to evolve the procedure in such a manner that the insistence of name in cases of such nature are not essential.
Further as a part of the monitoring procedure , the Court had asked the DGP previously to ascertain the accurate number of cases before Courts and Juvenile Justice Boards in context of relationships of minor children of a consensual nature and wanted data regarding the quashing of the proceedings in appropriate cases if found to be detrimental towards the future of the children or a form of abuse towards the process of law.
It came to the knowledge of the Court that that there were 111 cases which were registered from different zones with some cases pending in different stages of investigation and the Court was further informed that the police authorities would be getting in touch with the complainants and get their much needed consent which will allow the Court to quash the proceedings.
The Court further gave direction to ensure that the two finger test was not performed on these minor girls unless in case of detection of past injuries or for
medical treatment and also noted that the potency test was not required in all cases involving sexual violence and in situations where semen could be traced in the body of the victim , a blood sample was required to match the DNA.
Written by Parvati Arun , intern at Legal Vidhiya
