TABASSUM SULTANA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PALOK Basu, J. If there be any despicable action which words may fail to convey, this bunch of writ petitions may be indicating one at least. Callousness, carelessness and negligence if reaches its hight perhaps the type of incident which has come to the notice to this Court in the course of deciding these petitions, is the zenith. Before adverting to the facts, it may be remembered that motherhood is the precious possession of a woman and if per chance she is made to sacrifice the motherhood which she is yet to enter upon, it is no less than suicidal death for a young woman. The victim in this case happens to be one Smt. Gayatri Devi, aged about 18-19 years married only a couple of months ago who, under the Government Sponsored Scheme has been operated upon for tubectomy and thereby loses the most precious possession of her life. i. e. motherhood. All this was done in a Family Planning Camp organised by Government Officials in broad-day-light. Does it require a statement by this Court that any one, who is found guilty for having forced Smt. Gayatri Devi into this unpardonable tragic destitution, should be awarded the maximum punishment whether be it by a departmental proceeding or a criminal proceeding or a Civil Suit.

(2.) WHEN the first petition of Dr. (Kumari) Tabassum Sultana came to be filed in this Court, a detailed interim order was passed on 27th August, 1996. The District Judge, Mahrajganj was directed to make an inquiry into the circumstances which led to the tubectomy operation of Smt. Gayatri Devi on 11 th March, 1996. It may be stated here that the Additional District Judge, Mahrajganj namely, Shri S. V. Singh Rathore who was looking after as the officiating District Judge, Mahrajganj has taken all steps and pains to send his detailed report dated 5th December, 1995. After going through the statement recorded during the enquiry by the District Judge and the detailed report submitted by him, the Court is satisfied that the allegations made by Smt. Gayatri Devi concerning the involuntary criminal tubectomy operation performed upon her are correct. Since departmental proceedings and other proceedings emanating from the First Information Report of the husband and such other proceedings as maybe advised are yet to follow, none of the observations made in this judgment shall be used as conclusive for any of those proceedings which may begin subsequently. The observations herein shall be confined to the decision of these writ petitions which are being dealt with. Before proceeding further, the Court notices with satisfaction the promptness and clarity with which Shri S. V. Singh Rathore has proceeded with the matter and forwarded his report to this Court. The action is worthy of appreciation.

(3.) IN this series the 3rd petition is of Dr. Rakesh Kumar Singh who admittedly was the doctor who conducted physical, heart and chest test of the lady on whom the tubectomy operation was performed needless to repeat the lady who has been operated upon is a newly married woman of 18-19 years and also who was issue-less at the time of operation.