The Allahabad High Court has struck down as unconstitutional a requirement under the Uttar Pradesh Rani Lakshmi Bai Mahila Evam Bal Samman Kosh Scheme that child victims of aggravated penetrative sexual assault must produce an injury report indicating penetrative sexual assault to receive financial assistance. A Division Bench of Justice Garima Prashad and Justice Saral Srivastava held that making such a report indispensable could deny rehabilitation benefits to victims who did not consent to the relevant medical examination.
The Court was hearing a petition filed by a minor girl, represented by her mother, whose application for financial assistance had been rejected because no such injury report was available. The child, who was eight years old at the time of the incident, had undergone a medical examination in March 2024, but the particular examination relating to penetrative sexual assault was not conducted for want of consent. Although the police subsequently filed a chargesheet under Sections 5(m) and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, the District Steering Committee rejected her claim.
Justice Garima Prashad, who authored the judgment, observed that the scheme was intended to provide immediate monetary and medical relief, besides supporting victims’ maintenance, education, health and rehabilitation. The Bench held that a procedural requirement could not be applied in a manner that defeated the welfare objective of the scheme, particularly when the FIR and chargesheet disclosed the alleged offence. The Court observed:
“
“A mandatory injury-report condition places the victim in an impermissible dilemma: either submit to the particular examination or lose the financial assistance intended for her rehabilitation. The first choice may compromise the bodily autonomy which the law protects; the second may deny support at the stage when the victim is most vulnerable. A welfare scheme cannot indirectly compel what the governing statute prohibits from being done without consent.”
The Bench further held that the absence of an injury report did not disprove the allegation or diminish the victim’s need for immediate support. It noted that penetrative sexual assault under the POCSO Act is not confined to acts that necessarily leave visible physical injuries, and medical evidence, while relevant, is not conclusive of whether the offence occurred.
Holding the documentary requirement manifestly arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution, the Court declared it unconstitutional and struck it down. It clarified that an available medical report could still be considered, but its absence could no longer operate as an absolute bar to financial assistance.
Allowing the petition, the Court quashed the District Steering Committee’s rejection of the claim and directed the State to release ₹3 lakh in financial assistance within ten days. The amount is to be deposited in the protected bank account maintained for the minor or dealt with through another lawful arrangement safeguarding her interests.
