- (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. Shri B. P. Srivastava on behalf of Dr. (Kumari) Tabassum Sultana argued on several points. It was stated that since the petitioner was concerned only with the pre-vaginal test, and the case being that a lady who came to her for the said test, was a lady of about 30 years, it could not enable the petitioner to be held responsible in any way for the subsequent tubectomy of a lady of 18 years. Shri B. P. Srivastava wanted to argue as if the lady who was examined by petitioner Dr. (Kumari) Tabassum Sultana for P. V. Test was different one than the one ultimately operated upon. The second writ petition of Dr. Kapil Mani Misra indicates that the said petitioner was the assistant to the surgeon, namely, Dr. S. P. Singh, who had performed the operation of ill-fated Smt. Gayatri Devi. It was argued that the allegations of the respondents that petitioner Dr. Kapil Mani Misra was the assistant to Dr. S. P. Singh is not borne out from the averments made in the counteraffidavit and the other material known or disclosed to petitioners so far. Suffice it to say that Shri O. P. Srivastava, learned Additional Advocate General has placed before the Court the copy of the preliminary report of the Chief Medical Officer which indicates that aforesaid assertion of the respondents to the effect that petitioner Dr. Kapil Mani Misra was assisting Dr. S. P. Singh at the time Smt. Gayatri Devi was operated upon for tubectomy operation.
(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. This is the set of three petitions which consists of the doctors involved in the said tubectomy operation. The main doctor i. e. S. P. Singh, who was the surgeon, has not filed any writ petition so far, as intimated to this Court at the Bar. Similarly, the lady nurse or some other officials including Jai Narayan, the motivator, as also the other employees and doctors who may have been connected with the Family Planning Camp, have not filed any writ petition.;