The Supreme Court was hearing a petition seeking contempt action against the Delhi government.
New Delhi:
The Delhi High Court has asked the state government to submit an updated report on the status of a draft policy regarding sex-selective surgeries on intersex infants and children.
The Supreme Court passed the order after it was informed by the counsel for the Delhi government that a committee under the chairmanship of the Dean of Maulana Azad Medical College (MAMC) had been constituted by the Directorate General of Health Services (DGHS) for drawing up such a decision. policy.
It was hearing a petition seeking contempt of court against the Delhi government for alleged non-compliance of the Supreme Court’s order dated September 27, 2022, giving the state eight weeks to take an appropriate decision on the recommendations of the Delhi Commission for Protection of Child. Rights (DCPCR) in the field of sex-selective surgery.
Sex-selective surgeries involve medical procedures performed on intersex babies, who may not show all biological differences at birth. Intersex children are children who have sex organs, chromosomes, or reproductive organs that do not fit into the male/female sex binary.
“In view of the letter dated August 25, 2023, I am not inclined to issue a contempt order as of today. Let the matter be listed after 8 weeks so that the respondent (Government of Delhi) can file a current status report which indicates the status of the draft policy,” Justice Jasmeet Singh said in a recent order.
In the main petition, the DCPCR had recommended to the Delhi government to impose a ban on medically unnecessary sex-selective surgeries on intersex infants and children, except in cases of life-threatening situations.
The public interest litigation, filed by non-government-funded trust Srishti Madurai Educational Research Foundation, has sought advice from the government to implement the DCPCR recommendations and impose a ban on such operations.
During the hearing on the contempt petition, counsel for the petitioner said that despite the court’s directions, the accused did not take any action.
(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by DailyExpertNews staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)
