Introduction:

In a deeply disturbing case raising serious questions about public health, medical negligence, and the accountability of State institutions, the Jharkhand High Court in Deepika Hembram (through her natural guardian Anita Hembram) & Ors. v. State of Jharkhand & Ors., W.P. (Cr) No. 50 of 2026, intervened to ensure initiation of criminal law machinery in relation to allegations that HIV-infected blood was transfused to minor thalassemia patients at the Blood Bank of Chaibasa Sadar Hospital in West Singhbhum district. The matter was heard by a Single Judge Bench of Justice Gautam Kumar Choudhary, who was seized of a writ petition filed by the guardians of five minor children belonging to marginalized sections of society. The petitioners alleged that in October 2025, during routine blood transfusions necessitated by thalassemia, their children were administered infected blood, as a result of which they allegedly contracted HIV, irreversibly endangering their lives and future. The petition sought directions for registration of a First Information Report, constitution of a Court-monitored Special Investigation Team, and fixation of criminal liability on all persons responsible for the acts and omissions at the government blood bank. The State resisted the plea on the technical ground that no formal complaint had been lodged before the local police station. Against this backdrop, the High Court was called upon to balance procedural formalities with the fundamental right to life and health under Article 21 of the Constitution, particularly in the context of vulnerable children allegedly exposed to a life-threatening infection due to systemic failure. The Court’s order, directing immediate registration of an FIR and continued judicial monitoring, marks a crucial reaffirmation of the statutory duty of the police to act when cognizable offences are disclosed and underscores the judiciary’s role as sentinel on the qui vive where institutional apathy threatens basic human dignity.

Arguments of the Petitioners:

The petitioners, represented by learned counsel Mr. Md. Shadab Ansari, argued that the case disclosed a grave and shocking violation of the right to life and health of minor children, who were entirely dependent on the State-run healthcare system for survival. It was contended that the petitioners’ children were suffering from thalassemia, a condition requiring regular blood transfusions, and were therefore compelled to rely upon the Chaibasa Sadar Hospital Blood Bank, a public facility expected to adhere strictly to statutory and medical safety protocols. According to the petitioners, due to gross negligence, dereliction of duty, and possible criminal misconduct on the part of those managing and supervising the blood bank, HIV-infected blood was transfused into the bodies of five minor children. The petitioners submitted that the consequences of such transfusion were not merely temporary or reparable injuries but lifelong, stigmatizing, and potentially fatal harm, which could never be adequately compensated. They emphasized that blood banks are governed by strict regulatory frameworks under medical and health laws, including mandatory screening of blood for HIV and other transmissible diseases, and that any breach of these obligations amounts to a serious criminal offence. The petitioners further argued that despite the enormity of the allegations, the authorities failed to act with urgency or seriousness, compelling them to approach the High Court directly. They asserted that being members of marginalized and economically weaker sections, they lacked the resources, awareness, and social capital to effectively pursue remedies at the grassroots level, and that their attempts to seek redress had not yielded any concrete action. The petitioners prayed for registration of an FIR as a minimum and non-negotiable requirement under law once a cognizable offence is disclosed, and further sought constitution of a Special Investigation Team under judicial supervision to ensure a fair, independent, and time-bound investigation, given the possible involvement of public officials and institutional actors. It was urged that without court intervention, the matter would either be buried under bureaucratic inertia or reduced to a mere departmental issue, thereby denying justice to the minor victims.

Arguments of the State:

Appearing for the State of Jharkhand, learned counsel Ms. Amrita Banerjee opposed the writ petition primarily on procedural grounds. The State submitted that no written complaint had been lodged by the petitioners or their guardians before the Officer-in-Charge of the concerned police station and, therefore, no FIR had been registered. It was argued that the police could not be faulted for inaction when the statutory procedure for setting criminal law in motion had not been followed by the petitioners themselves. The State contended that without a formal complaint containing necessary particulars, the police machinery could not suo motu register a case, particularly in a matter involving technical medical issues. While not expressly disputing the seriousness of the allegations, the State sought to justify the absence of an FIR by pointing to the lack of a properly dated and formally submitted complaint. Implicitly, the State’s stand suggested that the petitioners ought to first exhaust remedies available under ordinary criminal law before invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. The State did not, at this stage, place on record any detailed explanation regarding the functioning of the blood bank, the protocols followed, or any internal inquiry conducted into the alleged incident, and confined its opposition largely to the procedural lapse highlighted above.

Court’s Judgment:

Justice Gautam Kumar Choudhary, after hearing both sides and perusing the materials placed on record, rejected the State’s attempt to reduce the issue to a mere technicality and adopted a rights-oriented and justice-centric approach. The Court took serious note of the allegations that minor children had allegedly contracted HIV due to transfusion of infected blood at a government hospital blood bank, observing that such allegations, if true, disclose grave cognizable offences involving not only medical negligence but also potential criminal liability. The Court emphasized that there is no ambiguity in law regarding the duty of the police to register an FIR once information disclosing a cognizable offence is received. Quoting settled legal principles, the Court observed, “There cannot be any cavil with the legal proposition that the police is under the statutory duty to lodge FIR when the complaint discloses a cognizable offence.” The Court acknowledged that the copy of the written report annexed with the writ petition did not contain a date, but held that this deficiency could not be used as a shield to deny initiation of criminal proceedings, especially in a case involving vulnerable children and allegations of life-threatening harm. Recognizing the socio-economic background of the petitioners, the Court noted that they belonged to marginalized sections and that their lack of access to effective legal remedies could not be held against them. The High Court accordingly directed that any of the petitioners, acting through their guardian, shall lodge a written report before the concerned police station, and that such report shall be registered as an FIR without any delay. The Court further directed that a copy of the FIR be furnished to the informant, thereby ensuring transparency and accountability at the very inception of the criminal process. Importantly, the Court also directed the Officer-in-Charge of the concerned police station to file a copy of the written report before the High Court by way of a counter-affidavit after registration of the FIR, signaling that the matter would remain under judicial scrutiny. While the Court did not, at this stage, constitute a Special Investigation Team or issue directions regarding monitoring of investigation, it made it clear that the case would be listed again on 18 February 2026, thereby keeping open the possibility of further judicial intervention depending on how the investigation progresses. Through this order, the High Court struck a careful balance between respecting procedural requirements and ensuring that procedural formalism does not become an instrument of injustice, particularly in cases involving alleged violation of the fundamental right to life of children.