Himachal Pradesh: The Himachal Pradesh High Court recently issued a significant directive, compelling the state government to compensate a minor rape victim with ₹5 lakh due to her traumatic experience during a two-finger test and inappropriate questioning by doctors during a medical examination. The division bench, comprising Justices Tarlok Singh Chauhan and Satyen Vaidya, expressed strong objection to certain questions in the hospital’s proforma, particularly those addressing the victim’s virginity. The court not only condemned the two-finger test but also explicitly instructed health professionals in the state to refrain from conducting it, emphasizing that such actions violate the rape survivors’ right to privacy, physical and mental integrity, and dignity.
The High Court’s order goes beyond compensation, as it sternly warned that doctors conducting the two-finger test on rape survivors could face prosecution and punishment under the Contempt of Courts Act, in addition to other potential actions against them.
The Court held that,
“In the meanwhile, all the health professionals of the State of Himachal Pradesh are directed to strictly desist from undertaking “two-finger test” know as “per-vaginum examination” on the rape survivors or else apart from other action(s) that may be taken against them, they shall be liable for being prosecuted and punished under the Contempt of Courts Act.”
The court deemed the questions in the proforma, including inquiries about pregnancy, the timing of the last coitus, and virginity status, as intrusive and violating the privacy of the child victim.
During the proceedings, the court scrutinized the medico-legal certificate (MLC) issued by the Civil Hospital Palampur, finding its contents demeaning and self-incriminating for the victim. It highlighted the insensitivity displayed by those designing the MLC and the associated proforma, asserting that it disregarded Section 53A of the Indian Evidence Act, which deems character and previous sexual experience irrelevant in certain cases.
The court emphasized that the proforma not only violated guidelines and protocols issued by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare but also ignored the Supreme Court’s prohibition of the two-finger test. Despite the withdrawal of the proforma, the court demanded an inquiry against the irresponsible medical professionals who designed it and the doctors who conducted the test, signaling that retirement would not shield them from financial liability.
While the State’s Health Secretary acknowledged the withdrawal of the proforma, the court held “irresponsible medical professionals” accountable, emphasizing that they cannot escape consequences. It criticized the trial court judge and district attorney for their lack of sensitivity in handling the case. The court scheduled a follow-up on February 27, expecting a report on the inquiry and confirmation of compensation payment to the child victim, demonstrating its commitment to holding accountable those responsible for the distressing experience endured by the minor rape victim.