Back
Questions On Hysterectomy Committees Not Formed After Bishmeet Kaur Plea
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma of the has taken the to task for failing to constitute , despite a central government notification mandating their formation over two years ago. The Court’s observation came while hearing a poignant petition filed on behalf of a 21-year-old woman with profound disabilities, seeking court approval for a hysterectomy to alleviate her severe menstrual distress.
A Family’s Struggle for Dignity
The case concerns Bishmeet Kaur, an adult woman born with cerebral palsy, spastic moderate hemiparesis, and moderate mental retardation (IQ of 42). Certified with , she is entirely dependent on her elderly parents for daily care. As she reached adolescence, her menstrual cycles became a source of intense physical and emotional turmoil—marked by uncooperativeness, inability to maintain hygiene, sleep disturbance, and profound distress that caregivers found traumatic to witness.
On , her parents approached , seeking a hysterectomy as a permanent solution. Doctors discussed alternatives, including insertion of a Mirena intrauterine device, but after extensive deliberation, concluded that hysterectomy was medically appropriate. However, citing the guidelines, they advised the family to before proceeding with the . A neurology opinion confirming her fitness for anaesthesia was also obtained.
The State’s Refusal and the Circular
When the matter came to court, the ’s counsel, , relied on a . The State submitted that doctors had refused the surgery because the patient was a “” and the procedure carried a .
Justice Sharma, however, found this reliance misplaced. The , issued by the , was not a but a set of guidelines intended to prevent unnecessary hysterectomies. It required all States and Union Territories to constitute Hysterectomy Committees at both State and District levels to oversee such decisions—especially in vulnerable populations.
Court Strikes a Different Note: What About the Committees?
In a sharp observation that broadened the scope of the hearing, the Court stated:
“Rather the question should be posed to the itself that despite the Notification of the , issued on , wherein … were shared … why no such Committee has not been constituted yet, which, if constituted, could have had some answers for such parents with special children.”
The Judge emphasised that the Circular did not address the core dilemma before the Court. The real lacuna was the —committees that could evaluate individual cases, balance , and provide clear guidance to treating doctors and families alike.
Implications and Next Steps
The Court’s intervention highlights a systemic gap: while national guidelines exist, their implementation has lagged, leaving vulnerable individuals and their caregivers in a legal and medical grey zone. Without such committees, families like Bishmeet’s are forced to approach High Courts for individual relief, a time-consuming and emotionally taxing process.
The ’s counsel sought time to obtain instructions, and the matter was listed for further hearing on . The Court directed that the order be uploaded immediately, signalling its urgency.
A Wait for Clarity
As the case awaits its next hearing, the central question remains: will the comply with the 2023 notification and establish the mandated committees? For Bishmeet Kaur and her parents, each passing day without relief prolongs their mental agony. The High Court’s query may well serve as a catalyst to fix a broken system—and bring dignity to patients and families who deserve swift, compassionate, and legally sound decisions.
