PRAYAGRAJ, Oct. 25 -- The Allahabad high court has declared unconstitutional a provision under the Uttar Pradesh Rani Lakshmi Bai Mahila Evam Bal Samman Kosh Scheme, 2015, that made an injury report indicating penetrative sexual assault mandatory for claiming financial assistance for child sexual assault survivors. In its October 23 judgment, a division bench of Justices Saral Srivastava and Garima Prashad held that the condition was manifestly arbitrary and violated Article 14 of the Constitution, as it could deny rehabilitation assistance to victims for reasons unrelated to their need for relief. "A welfare scheme cannot indirectly compel what the governing statute prohibits from being done without consent," the court observed, noting that the law protects a survivor's right to refuse a particular medical examination. The court was hearing a petition filed on behalf of a minor girl from Jaunpur whose claim for financial assistance was rejected because no injury report indicating penetrative sexual assault was available. Although the girl had undergone a medical examination, consent had not been given for the specific examination relating to penetrative sexual assault. An FIR was registered in March 2024 under relevant provisions of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (Pocso) Act. Following the investigation, police filed a charge sheet invoking Sections 5(m) and 6 of the Pocso Act. The criminal trial is pending. Under entry 7 of the scheme, a survivor of aggravated penetrative sexual assault is entitled to Rs.3 lakh in financial assistance, payable in two instalments. The provision required the FIR, charge sheet and an injury report indicating penetrative sexual assault to process the claim. Rejecting the argument that all three documents were indispensable, the bench said an injury report could be relevant evidence but could not be treated as the exclusive means of establishing penetrative sexual assault. The offence does not necessarily leave visible physical injuries, and their absence does not, by itself, disprove an allegation, it observed. The bench noted that the scheme aims to provide immediate monetary and medical relief and support victims' maintenance, education, health and rehabilitation. Making an injury report an absolute eligibility condition had no rational connection with these objectives and instead frustrated them. The court also pointed out that the condition placed survivors in an impermissible dilemma: either consent to a particular medical examination or risk losing financial assistance intended for their rehabilitation. Such a requirement could penalise victims for exercising a choice protected by law, it said. The bench clarified that an available medical or injury report could still be placed before and considered by the competent authority. However, its absence could not be an absolute bar to assistance. The requirement was severable from the rest of the scheme, which would remain workable on the basis of the FIR and charge sheet. Quashing the District Steering Committee's decision to reject the minor's claim, the court directed the authorities to release the entire Rs.3 lakh to her within 10 days of the judgment. The amount must be deposited in a protected bank account maintained for the victim or dealt with through another lawful arrangement ordered by the competent court to safeguard the minor's interests. The writ petition was allowed, with no order as to costs....