DR NARENDRA GUPTA versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation: [2023] 6 S.C.R. 992 · Decided: 05-04-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.Y. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Directions issued

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
992
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 6 S.C.R.
DR NARENDRA GUPTA
v.
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
(Writ Petition (Civil) No. 131 of 2013)
APRIL 05, 2023
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, CJI AND
J. B. PARDIWALA, J.]
Directions by Supreme Court – Unnecessary Hysterectomies
– Constitution of India – Art.21 – Violation of Fundamental Rights
of Women – Guidelines to Prevent Unnecessary Hysterectomies – A
public interest litigation was filed by the petitioner in 2013,
highlighting the issue of unnecessary hysterectomies being
performed under various government healthcare schemes in various
States – Petitioner has brought to Supreme Court’s notice the fact
that women, who should not have been subjected to hysterectomies
and to whom alternative treatment could have been extended, were
subjected to hysterectomies, seriously endangering their health in
the process and also submitted that most women who were subjected
to hysterectomies of this kind belonged to the Scheduled Castes,
Scheduled Tribes, or Other Backward Communities – On
13.12.2022, Supreme Court directed the Secretary, MoHFW to
examine the grievance which was raised and to file a response –
From the counter affidavits filed by the Various States, it emerged
that there is a considerable degree of substance in the facts which
have been highlighted in the petition – In 2022, MoHFW issued
guidelines titled “Guidelines to Prevent Unnecessary
Hysterectomies,” which have been forwarded to all the States and
Union Territories for compliance – The Union government also filed
the status report proposing the action plan and indicating the steps
which were taken by various States while dealing with the
performance of unnecessary hysterectomies – Held: The right to
health is an intrinsic element of the right to life u/Art. 21 and there
has been a serious violation of the fundamental rights of the women
who underwent unnecessary hysterectomies – Further, that the
Guidelines which have been adopted to prevent unnecessary
[2023] 6 S.C.R. 992
992
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
993
hysterectomies must be adopted by all the States and Union
Territories – MoHFW shall engage with all the States and Union
Territories to ensure that the Guidelines are adopted expeditiously
– All States and Union Territories directed to adopt and implement
the Guidelines and report compliance to MoHFW and further ensure
that all public and private hospitals within their territories are made
aware of the existence and importance of the Guidelines – All the
States and Union Territories must take stringent action for
blacklisting hospitals once it is detected that any unnecessary
hysterectomy was carried out or that the procedure was taken
recourse to without the informed consent of the patient and directed
that necessary action be taken in accordance with law – The Union
government directed to take all necessary steps in accordance with
the Guidelines to effectuate the public interest which is sought to be
achieved.
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (Civil) No.
131 of 2013.
Under Article 32 of The Constitution of India
Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, Jayant K Sud, A.S.Gs., Dr. Manish Singhvi,
S. C. Verma, Sr. Advs., Ms. Kawalpreet Kaur, Satya Mitra, Gurmeet
Singh Makker, Dr. Arun Kumar Yadav, Digvijay Dam, Praveena Gautam,
Akshit Pradhan, A K Kaul, Abhinav Mukerji, Akshay Shrivastava, Mrs.
Bihu Sharma, Ms. Pratishtha Vij, Arpit Parkash, Ms. Shubhangi Agarwal,
Milind Kumar, Sumeer Sodhi, Gaurav Arora Advs. for the appearing
parties.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, CJI
1. A public interest litigation has been instituted by Dr Narendra
Gupta in 2013 highlighting the fact that in the States of Bihar, Chhattisgarh
and Rajasthan, in particular, “unnecessary hysterectomies” were carried
out under the Rashtriya Swasthya Bima Yojana as well as other
government schemes related to healthcare. The petition also highlights
the involvement of private hospitals in performing such hysterectomies.
The Union Ministry of Health and Family Welfare1 is the first respondent,
DR NARENDRA GUPTA v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
994
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 6 S.C.R.
while the States of Bihar, Rajasthan and Chhattisgarh are impleaded as
the second, third and fourth respondents respectively. Based on his field
work, the petitioner has brought to our notice the fact that women, who
should not have been subjected to hysterectomies and to whom alternative
treatment could have been extended, were subj

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.