Allahabad HC: Rani Lakshmi Bai Scheme Injury Report Condition Unconstitutional

• The Allahabad High Court ruled that denying ₹3 lakh rehabilitation aid to child sexual assault victims under the Uttar Pradesh Rani Lakshmi Bai Scheme for lack of an injury report is unconstitutional.
• The court stated that a welfare scheme cannot force a choice between bodily autonomy and financial assistance.
• The decision came from a case where a minor girl's claim was rejected because consent for the penetrative sexual assault medical examination was not given, preventing an injury report.
• Justices Garima Prashad and Saral Srivastava directed the State to release ₹3 lakh to the victim within 10 days and quashed the rejection.
• The ruling clarifies that an injury report is not an indispensable condition for aid, aligning with the scheme's social-welfare purpose.

The High Court's ruling emphasized that a welfare scheme cannot compel an individual to choose between their fundamental right to bodily autonomy and access to financial assistance.

The Allahabad High Court recently issued a significant ruling, declaring unconstitutional a specific condition within the Uttar Pradesh Rani Lakshmi Bai Mahila Evam Bal Samman Kosh Rules, 2015. This condition mandated an injury report detailing penetrative sexual assault as a prerequisite for child victims of sexual violence to receive ₹3 lakh in financial assistance. The court determined that denying this rehabilitation aid solely due to the absence of such a report, especially when a medical examination was not fully completed due to a lack of consent, contravenes Article 14 of the Indian Constitution.

This decision came in response to a writ petition filed by a minor girl whose application for financial aid under the Uttar Pradesh Rani Lakshmi Bai Scheme had been rejected. The District Steering Committee had cited the unavailability of the required injury report as the reason for denial. The court, comprising Justices Garima Prashad and Saral Srivastava, not only overturned this rejection but also instructed the State government to disburse the ₹3 lakh to the victim within ten days of the judgment.

The case originated from an incident on January 28, 2024, involving the then eight-year-old victim. An FIR was subsequently lodged on March 7, 2024, at Shahganj police station in Jaunpur district, under various sections of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, including 376-AB, 120-B, 504, and 506, alongside Sections 5(m) and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012. A medical examination was conducted on March 8, 2024. However, the attending physician noted that consent for the specific examination related to penetrative sexual assault had not been granted. Consequently, while a general medical record existed, the particular injury report required by the scheme could not be generated. A charge-sheet was later filed, invoking POCSO Act Sections 5(m) and 6, among others, and the accused was arrested, with the criminal trial ongoing at the time of the High Court's hearing.

The High Court's ruling emphasized that a welfare scheme cannot compel an individual to choose between their fundamental right to bodily autonomy and access to financial assistance. The bench explicitly stated that child victims of sexual violence should not be deprived of rehabilitation benefits simply because an injury report is absent due to a lack of consent for a specific medical procedure. The court found that making the injury report an indispensable condition was inconsistent with the core rehabilitative objective of the Rani Lakshmi Bai Scheme.

The State government had argued that the scheme was an independent welfare measure and its eligibility criteria should be strictly adhered to. It also contended that a previous division bench ruling, *Victim X in FIR No.048 of 2025 v. State of U.P. and others*, had only waived the requirement for *visible physical injury*, not the necessity of an *injury report* itself. However, the High Court rejected these arguments, asserting that the scheme's purpose, as outlined in Rule 4(a), is social welfare, and all conditions must support this aim rather than frustrate it.

The court further clarified that documents such as the First Information Report (FIR), the charge-sheet, and the medical report serve distinct functions. The FIR documents the initial allegations, the charge-sheet reflects the investigative agency's findings based on collected evidence, and the medical report presents available medical observations. Crucially, the court noted that none of these documents constitute a judicial determination of guilt or injury, thus reinforcing that the absence of one specific type of report should not be an absolute barrier to aid.

This judgment significantly impacts how financial aid is disbursed to child sexual assault victims in Uttar Pradesh under the Rani Lakshmi Bai Scheme. Previously, Entry 7 of Annexure 1 of the scheme stipulated that victims of aggravated penetrative sexual assault (punishable under Section 6 of the POCSO Act) were entitled to ₹3 lakh, provided they submitted an FIR, an injury report indicating penetrative sexual assault, and a charge-sheet. The Allahabad HC Rani Lakshmi Bai Scheme injury report decision effectively removes the mandatory nature of the injury report, ensuring that victims are not penalized for exercising their right to bodily integrity or for circumstances where a full medical examination for penetrative assault was not feasible or consented to.

The ruling underscores the principle that welfare schemes, particularly those designed for vulnerable populations like child victims of sexual assault, must be interpreted and applied in a manner that upholds their humanitarian intent. By striking down the rigid injury report requirement, the Allahabad High Court has paved the way for more accessible and equitable distribution of rehabilitation funds, preventing bureaucratic hurdles from impeding the recovery and support of those who have experienced severe trauma. This precedent will be crucial for future cases where victims might face similar rejections based on the absence of a specific medical document, ensuring that POCSO financial aid injury report issues do not hinder compensation.

Lawyers representing child sexual assault victims in Uttar Pradesh should be aware of this Allahabad High Court ruling, which removes the mandatory injury report requirement for accessing ₹3 lakh rehabilitation aid under the Rani Lakshmi Bai Scheme. This precedent can be cited to challenge rejections of financial assistance applications where an injury report is unavailable due to lack of consent for medical examination, ensuring victims are not denied aid on this ground.

Source: Original reporting via legal news sources