The Supreme Court proposed issuing guidelines for timely medical treatment in sexual assault cases after hearing the Ghaziabad child rape and murder case, while recording voluntary payments of ₹12 lakh by two hospitals to the victim's family

The Supreme Court on Friday indicated that it would frame guidelines to ensure timely medical treatment for victims of sexual assault and improve the handling of such cases by hospitals and police authorities, while hearing the matter concerning the rape and murder of a four-year-old girl in Ghaziabad.

The Bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana was hearing the case in which it had earlier constituted a Special Investigation Team (SIT) after expressing concern over the alleged failure of Uttar Pradesh authorities and the refusal of two private hospitals to provide timely treatment to the child.

Appearing as amicus curiae, Senior Advocate N. Hariharan submitted that the SIT report revealed serious negligence on the part of the hospitals. He argued that the first hospital failed to call the required specialists despite having the facility to do so and instead referred the child elsewhere. According to him, the second hospital, despite being a multi-speciality institution with adequate facilities, also failed to provide treatment.

Hariharan contended that timely medical intervention could have saved the child's life.

He further criticised the conduct of the police, submitting that the victim's family's complaint was not accurately recorded and that insensitive handling of such cases only aggravated the trauma suffered by victims.

Observing that the case reflected a larger systemic issue, the Bench remarked that there remained a significant gap between the law as enacted and its implementation on the ground.

The Court observed that police academies should conduct orientation and sensitisation programmes to ensure better handling of cases involving victims of sexual offences.

Hariharan urged the Court to issue comprehensive directions to medical institutions, arguing that hospitals must immediately report such cases and provide emergency treatment without delay. He described the explanations offered by the hospitals as wholly unacceptable.

The Bench agreed that positive directions were required and invited suggestions from the amicus on bridging the gap between the statutory framework and its implementation.

Referring to the importance of immediate medical care, Hariharan pointed out that while heart attack victims benefit from the "golden hour," the four-year-old child in the present case remained without effective treatment for nearly five hours after suffering severe injuries.

Justice Joymalya Bagchi observed that timely medical intervention could substantially improve survival rates in several critical cases, including burn injuries, underscoring the importance of prompt treatment.

During the hearing, the Court asked representatives of the two hospitals whether they were willing to compensate the victim's family. Counsel appearing for the hospitals submitted that the payment may be treated as a voluntary contribution rather than compensation, considering the pending criminal proceedings.

Recording the statement, the Supreme Court noted that St. Joseph Mariam Hospital, Ghaziabad had voluntarily agreed to pay ₹10 lakh, while the second hospital agreed to contribute ₹2 lakh to the victim's family. The Court directed that the amount be paid through demand drafts within four weeks.

The Bench further indicated that it was inclined to issue guidelines to ensure timely medical care and proper institutional response in cases involving child victims of sexual offences.

Background of the Case

In July, the Court had come down heavily on an Ayurvedic doctor who denied medical care to a child rape victim in Ghaziabad in March this year. "A child is brought before you, and you are so merciless, you did not provide medical care. If you had any empathy, you would have taken her to the hospital yourself," the Court told the doctor. "When we impose penalty, it will have a chilling effect. It will be victim compensation and a reasonable compensation to the family. You have acted in the most ruthless manner," CJI Kant added.

In April this year, court directed the constitution of a Special Investigation Team (SIT) to probe the rape and murder case. Expressing concern over the handling of the case, the Court had ordered the Director General of Police, Uttar Pradesh, to constitute an SIT comprising senior women police officers. The team is to be headed by an officer of the rank of Commissioner or Inspector General of Police, assisted by a Superintendent of Police (or Additional SP) and a Deputy SP or Inspector, all women officers. The Court directed that the SIT be notified immediately and begin investigation without delay.

The Bench had observed that the victim’s parents were dissatisfied with the investigation carried out by the Ghaziabad police. It also noted that, given the “barbaric” nature of the offence, the matter warranted prompt and sensitive handling, which appeared lacking.

Importantly, the SIT had been tasked with examining all grievances raised by the victim’s family, including concerns regarding the protection of key witnesses. It will also investigate the role of two private hospitals that allegedly refused to admit the child when she was still alive and in urgent need of medical care. The Court underscored that the conduct of the hospitals must be independently scrutinised.

The SIT had been directed to complete its investigation expeditiously, preferably within two weeks, and submit a supplementary report before the trial court. Until then, the ongoing trial proceedings have been kept in abeyance.

The case pertains to an incident on March 16, when the child was allegedly lured by a neighbour on the pretext of offering chocolates. She was later found grievously injured and was declared dead at a government hospital after reportedly being denied treatment at two private facilities. Notably, the Court had earlier flagged the reluctance of the local police to promptly register an FIR and criticised the “insensitive approach” adopted during the investigation.

Case Title: XXX v. State of Uttar Pradesh

Bench: CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana

Hearing Date: August 7, 2026

Tags: