<h2>Supreme Court Intervenes in Ghaziabad Child Rape‑Murder Case</h2> <p>The apex <span class="key-term" data-definition="Supreme Court — the highest judicial authority in India, responsible for interpreting the Constitution and ensuring rule of law (GS2: Polity)">Supreme Court</span> on 10 April 2026 directed the <span class="key-term" data-definition="Commissioner of Police — senior police officer heading the police force of a district or city, responsible for law‑and‑order and administration (GS2: Polity)">Commissioner of Police, Ghaziabad</span> to appear in person. The order follows a writ petition filed by the victim’s father alleging police harassment, refusal of treatment by two private hospitals, and failure to invoke sexual‑assault provisions under the new criminal code.</p> <h3>Key Developments</h3> <ul> <li>SC bench (CJI Surya Kant, Justices Joymalya Bagchi &amp; Vipul Pancholi) labelled the conduct of the hospitals and police as “inhuman and insensitive”.</li> <li>The petition seeks transfer of investigation to the <span class="key-term" data-definition="Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) — India's premier investigative agency handling high‑profile cases, often directed by courts (GS2: Polity)">CBI</span> or a <span class="key-term" data-definition="Special Investigation Team (SIT) — an ad‑hoc team constituted to investigate complex or sensitive cases, reporting directly to the court or government (GS2: Polity)">Special Investigation Team</span> for a time‑bound probe.</li> <li>Police registered FIR under <span class="key-term" data-definition="Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) — the new criminal code that replaces the Indian Penal Code, effective from 2023 (GS2: Polity)">BNS</span> Section 103(1) (murder) and Section 238(a) (evidence tampering), but omitted sections on rape (<span class="key-term" data-definition="Section 376 IPC — provision dealing with rape under the Indian Penal Code (GS2: Polity)">376 IPC</span>) and the <span class="key-term" data-definition="POCSO Act — Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, criminalising sexual offences against children (GS2: Polity)">POCSO Act</span>.</li> <li>Two private hospitals — Khajan Singh Manvi Health Care and St. Joseph (Mariam) Hospital — denied admission despite the child being in critical condition; she later died at MMG District Hospital.</li> <li>The family alleges physical assault and intimidation by police, including threats of media suppression ahead of elections.</li> </ul> <h3>Important Facts</h3> <p>• On <strong>16 March 2026</strong>, the child was allegedly abducted by a neighbour and later found injured in a field.<br> • Post‑mortem revealed injuries to private parts, head, and other body parts, but the examining doctor failed to record sexual assault details.<br> • Video evidence reportedly shows the child breathing after the incident, which police ignored.<br> • Accused, while in police custody, allegedly sustained gunshot injuries; the Court questioned how a detainee could possess a firearm.</p> <h3>UPSC Relevance</h3> <p>This case touches upon several GS‑2 (Polity) themes: the functioning and accountability of law‑enforcement agencies, the role of the judiciary in safeguarding victims’ rights, and the implementation of newly enacted statutes such as the <span class="key-term" data-definition="Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) — a new code aimed at protecting citizens’ rights and ensuring safety, replacing older provisions (GS2: Polity)">Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita</span>. It also highlights gaps in the health‑care system’s duty to provide emergency care, a point of relevance for GS‑1 (Society) and GS‑4 (Ethics) discussions on state responsibility and child protection.</p> <h3>Way Forward</h3> <p>The Court has ordered a court‑monitored, time‑bound investigation, directing the Commissioner, the SHO of Nandgram police station, and the investigating officer to be present with original records on the next hearing. It also directed that no coercive action be taken against the victim’s family or witnesses, and that the child’s identity be protected. The judgment underscores the need for:</p> <ul> <li>Strict adherence to the <span class="key-term" data-definition="POCSO Act — Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, which mandates prompt medical and legal response to child sexual abuse (GS2: Polity)">POCSO Act</span> and related provisions in the new criminal code.</li> <li>Accountability mechanisms for private hospitals refusing emergency treatment.</li> <li>Transparent handling of evidence, including video footage, to prevent miscarriage of justice.</li> <li>Review of police procedures concerning custodial safety and firearm possession.</li> </ul> <p>For UPSC aspirants, the case serves as a contemporary illustration of the challenges in implementing legal reforms, ensuring child protection, and maintaining institutional integrity.</p>