The Delhi High Court has directed hospitals across the national capital to refrain from insisting on identity proof from rape survivors—particularly minors—when they seek medical termination of pregnancy (MTP) on the basis of court or Child Welfare Committee (CWC) directions.

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, in a judgment dated May 29, emphasized the urgent need for "clear, practical, and sensitive" medical protocols in handling such cases, and criticised existing procedures that often lead to unnecessary distress for survivors.

“Hospitals and medical institutions must be sensitised to the fact that cases involving victims of sexual assault, especially minor girls, require a more responsive and sensitive approach,” the Court stated.

The case pertained to a minor rape survivor who was turned away by hospital staff on grounds that she lacked identification documents and that a court order was required before any medical board could assess her for pregnancy termination.

Though AIIMS later reported clinical indications of a 20-week pregnancy, the hospital refused to perform an ultrasound, insisted on an ossification test, and declined to form a medical board, citing the lack of ID and absence of court directions. Eventually, the Court had to intervene with a specific order on May 5 directing AIIMS to carry out the MTP. A detailed judgment was subsequently issued to address the procedural lapses.

1. No ID Proof Required:
   If a rape survivor is brought by an investigating officer (IO) or through court/CWC direction, hospitals must not insist on any ID proof. Identification by the IO will suffice for conducting ultrasounds or any diagnostic tests.

2. Immediate Medical Examination:
   Hospitals must promptly conduct comprehensive medical examinations of survivors, without delays.

3. Responsibility of Investigating Officer:
   The IO must ensure that the case file and necessary documents are submitted along with the survivor at the time of medical examination.

4. Medical Boards Must Act Proactively:
   In cases where gestation exceeds 24 weeks, a medical board should be constituted immediately, even without specific court direction. The board must carry out the examination promptly and submit a report.

5. Informed Consent in Vernacular Language:
   Consent for MTP must be taken in the vernacular language understood by the survivor or guardian.

6. Mandatory SOPs and Legal Guidelines:
   Hospital administrations are directed to ensure availability of updated SOPs and legal guidelines under the MTP Act, POCSO Act, and Supreme Court directives in both emergency and gynecology departments.

7. Regular Sensitisation of Medical Staff:
   Duty doctors must be regularly briefed on their legal obligations and trained in sensitive handling of such cases.

Justice Sharma noted that procedural confusion, the insistence on identity documents, and the lack of urgent response in the present case worsened the trauma faced by the survivor. The Court emphasized that milestones in legal reform must be matched by operational sensitivity on the ground.

“Medical protocols must align not only with statutory obligations but also with compassion and practicality,” the Court said, highlighting that survivors face unique vulnerabilities and should not be retraumatized by bureaucratic rigidity.