The Bombay High Court has expressed strong disapproval of the Maharashtra government for failing to comply with the Supreme Court’s directives regarding the confidentiality of minor victims of sexual assault. It was noted that since the Supreme Court’s order in May 2024, the state had taken only limited steps, prompting the court to demand submission of draft guidelines by September 8.
The case was being heard by a bench comprising Justices Ravindra Ghuge and Gautam Ankhad. The matter came before the court through petitions filed by two doctors, who alleged that they had been harassed by police officers for refusing to disclose the identities of minors who approached them for medical termination of pregnancy. According to the judges, the petitions reflected concerns that doctors were being compelled by police to record names, contrary to existing legal protections.
The bench recalled the landmark Supreme Court judgment in X vs Principal Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department delivered in 2022, which categorically held that the identity of minors in such cases must remain confidential. It was further observed that even the Bombay High Court, in 2024, had directed the government to frame guidelines for police and authorities. However, the court remarked that more than 15 months had elapsed since its first direction, with “too little” being done by the state administration.
The petitions originated from an incident involving Palghar police and gynaecologist Dr. Rajendra Chawhan, who was allegedly compelled to disclose the identity of a 16-year-old girl seeking to terminate a 14-week pregnancy. The girl and her mother had reportedly told the doctor that the pregnancy resulted from a consensual relationship. Under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, however, consent of a girl under 18 carries no legal weight, and doctors are obliged to report such cases while preserving forensic evidence.
Despite this obligation, the Supreme Court clarified in 2022 that while evidence must be collected with the consent of the minor and guardian, there was no requirement for doctors to reveal the names of victims. Legal representatives for the petitioners argued that compelling doctors to disclose such information was inconsistent with the apex court’s ruling and urged that the judgment be formally circulated to all police stations. In response to these submissions, the High Court directed the state government to table draft guidelines that would ensure compliance with the law and protect the privacy of minors. The next hearing is scheduled for September 8, when the court will examine whether the government has acted on its instructions.