JUDGMENT : The petitioners are Gynecologists working in various Government Hospital in different districts, in the State of Kerala. 2. The petitioners impugn the “Kerala Medico-legal Protocol for Examination of Survivor of Sexual Offences, 2019”, as is now sought to be amended through Ext.P7, asserting that, if the same is implemented, they would be put to unnecessary burden and prejudice. 3. Sri.Shyam Padman, learned Senior Counsel, instructed by Smt.Laya Mary Joseph – learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, submitted that, as is evident from Ext.P7, an unnecessary rigour has been placed on Gynecologists, by mandating that the examination of a woman/girl survivor of vaginal penetrative sexual assault should be undertaken only by such specialist because, this will distract them from other more pressing demands of their expertise and will subject them to unnecessary burden, of being required to follow the forensic protocols, even where treatment is not necessary. The learned Senior Counsel submitted that, going by Section 27 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (‘POCSO Act’ for short) and Section 164A of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, there is no statutory mandate that only a Gynecologist should examine a woman or a girl survivor of sexual assault; and hence that the proposed amendments are illegal and unlawful, if not, the product of a improper exercise of mind, and hence liable to be set aside. 4. Learned Senior Counsel then pointed out that, going by the National Protocols that are still in force – as luculent from Ext.P2, there is no stipulation therein on a Gynecologist alone to examine a sexual assault victim and that it provides that any Registered Medical Practitioner can do so, provided that, in the case of a woman or a girl victim, every possible effort should be made to find a female doctor. Sri.Shyam Padman thus argued that the proposed amendments are totally unnecessary and that it is an exercise in confutative course because, as is manifest from Ext.P7 Government Order, they have been brought in at the instance of certain other doctors, who are not Gynecologists, who had earlier approached the Kerala Administrative Tribunal and obtained Ext.P6 order. He argued that Ext.P6 order was one delivered without hearing his client; and that, in any event, this is not a service matter, which should have seized the attention of the said Tribunal. He argued that Ext.P6 order was one delivered without hearing his client; and that, in any event, this is not a service matter, which should have seized the attention of the said Tribunal. He thus prayed that Ext.P7, to the extent impugned, be set aside. 5. Sri.Grashious Kuriakose, learned Additional Director General of Prosecutions, instructed by Smt.Vidya Kuriakose -learned Government Pleader appearing for the official respondents, submitted that the petitioners have either approached this Court under a misconsumption or maliciously because, going by the proposed Protocols, it is only the examination of a woman/girl survivor of vaginal penetrative sexual assault, which has been mandated to be done by a Gynecologist at the first instance. He explained that this is because, it is not merely the examination and the collection of evidence which is important, but also the assessment of the best treatment to be made available to the victim, rather than driving such person from doctor to doctor for such purpose. He then explained that, in fact, going by the Protocols of the year 2015, the responsibility of examining, reporting and giving evidence was with female Gynecologists, but that this was modified when the 2019 Protocols were put in place, adverting to the factum of their grievance of being inordinately burdened. 6. Sri.Grashious Kuriakose submitted that it is taking note of all relevant facts, including the imperative care and protection that is to be offered and given to woman/girl survivor of vaginal penetrative sexual assault, that the proposed amendments have been brought in, so as to enable them to get the best treatment also, along with collection of evidence, without having to suffer the ignominy of breach of their privacy, going from one Department to the other. He argued that the Gynecologists cannot dictate to the Government the manner in which their services are to be modulated; and that such an attempt is an anathema to the guiding principles of medical ethos and ethics. He thus prayed that this writ petition be dismissed. 7. Being a matter of grave public concern, this Court has considered the afore submissions, on the touchstone of the various materials on record, not in the manner of an adversarial litigation, but from the point of view of a survivor of sexual attack, particularly a woman or a girl having undergone vaginal penetrative sexual assault. 8. 7. Being a matter of grave public concern, this Court has considered the afore submissions, on the touchstone of the various materials on record, not in the manner of an adversarial litigation, but from the point of view of a survivor of sexual attack, particularly a woman or a girl having undergone vaginal penetrative sexual assault. 8. As rightly argued by Sri.Grashious Kuriakose, the proposed amendments to the 2019 Protocols are related to only one category of sexual attack survivors, namely, “woman/girl survivor of vaginal penetrative sexual assault”. Indubitably, therefore, every other kind of sexual offences are kept away from this purview and a class of victims are created, justifiably, because this is the worst kind of crime that could be committed against any woman/girl. 9. No doubt, the 2019 Protocol is styled as the “Kerala Medicolegal Protocol for Examination of Survivor of Sexual Offences”; and at first blush, the argument of the learned Senior Counsel – Sri.Shyam Padman, that the examination can be done by any Registered Medical Practitioner look lustrous. However, on a closer examination of what the State intends to achieve, this argument may fall, for the simple reason that the proposed amendments says that the insistence of a woman Gynecologist -provided there are at least two of them in the Hospital at the given time -is not only to obtain the best evidence and the report of examination – which certainly the Gynecologist or any other registered Medical Practitioner would be capable of -but to make available “life saving treatment”, if it is found to be necessary, at the time of examination itself. 10. Obviously, what the State intends to give is a comprehensive support to the victim, both from the angle of the medico-legal examination as well as the treatment options; and in such perspective, if the examination is to be done at the first instance by a Registered Medical Practitioner, who is not a Gynecologist, it is likely that the requirement of a treatment to avoid a life threatening situation may be missed or perhaps not properly evaluated. When it comes to a Gynecologist, it serves a dual purpose, of the doctor being able to not only make the medico-legal examination, but also the evaluation of the medical treatment to be offered, which certainly, would be the best comprehensive support that a victim, particularly a young girl or a woman, would require in the given circumstances. Add to this, would be the additional benefit of the privacy of the woman/girl being protected to the best possible extent because, a Gynecologist would be in a better position to make a thorough evaluation of the victim’s medical condition at the first instance itself; rather than such evaluation being made by a Registered Medical Practitioner and then referring the victim to the Gynecologist again, which would multiply the times the said person will have to go through the rigour of such assessments. 11. That being said, there is certainly a question as to whether every woman/girl survivor of vaginal penetrative sexual assault must be taken only to a Gynecologist and not to any other Registered Medical Practitioner. The insistence as afore can surely seen to be laudatory, but a blind adherence to the same, would probably lead to unforeseen rigour, on a case to case basis. This is an issue which, therefore, will have to attain the attention of the Government, or its competent Authorities, for which, certainly, the Gynecologists must be at liberty to approach them appropriately, detailing their grievances which they may have in certain specific circumstances. 12. Before I close this judgment I must, however, record that Sri.J.G.Syamnath – learned counsel for respondents 6 to 10, had affirmed that, it is at his clients’ instance, that the Government brought out the changes in the Protocol, as reflected in Ext.P7. He explained that, his clients have nothing against Gynecologists, but are only concerned that a woman/girl survivor of vaginal penetrative sexual assault would miss the first available opportunity for a good treatment, if only a Registered Medical Practitioner is to examine them; and that it is solely, therefore, that they are requested that such grave cases be left to the assessment by the said specialists. He reiterated that his clients did not approach the Government for any confutative reason, as has been stated by the petitioners; but only to ensure that the victims get the finest care as possible, within the shortest period of time. 13. He reiterated that his clients did not approach the Government for any confutative reason, as has been stated by the petitioners; but only to ensure that the victims get the finest care as possible, within the shortest period of time. 13. The afore submissions of Sri.J.G.Syamnath certainly resonates with the view that I have already taken above; and am certain that this is not a case where one section of doctors should be pitied against another. They are all Registered Medical Practitioners in the semantic sense of the term; and all of them are capable of examining sexual assault victims under the Protocols -be that of the year 2015 or 2019. 14. I say as afore because, as seen from the amendments proposed, the insistence on a Gynecologist attending to a sexual assault victim is confined to a woman or a girl survivor and that too in the case of a vaginal penetrative sexual attack. This is relevant because, one cannot generalize that all sexual assault victims are only woman/girl and can be men or transgenders or other categories as the case may be. However, when it comes to the case of a woman or a girl survivor of a vaginal penetrative sexual assault, certainly, their best treatment can be decided by the Gynecologist at the first instance itself, if the examination is made by such specialist; and hence, cannot find any reason to find it to be capricious, arbitrary or vitiated by any other circumstances. 15. However, that being said, the Protocols may require a little bit of fine tuning, to ensure that the Gynecologists are not put to undue rigour on account of its operation, on a case to case basis; for which, as I have already said above, liberty requires to be left to them to approach the competent Authorities appositely. 16. In fact, Sri.Grashious Kuriakose – learned Additional Director General of Prosecutions, very fairly conceded that the Government is only concerned about the victim of the offence and that they have no intent to burden the Gynecologist in any manner; and that they are, therefore, willing to hear them with an open mind, if they are to approach its competent Authority. 17. The afore suggestion of Sri.Grashious Kuriakose – learned Additional Director General of Prosecutions certainly would be the best in the circumstances, that the petitioners can seek. 18. 17. The afore suggestion of Sri.Grashious Kuriakose – learned Additional Director General of Prosecutions certainly would be the best in the circumstances, that the petitioners can seek. 18. In the afore circumstances, without acceding to the challenge impelled by the petitioners in this writ petition, I allow them to approach the Government with an appropriate representation detailing their specific grievances, if any; and if this is to be done within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, they will be heard, along with any other person interested, including the party respondents herein, by its competent Authority; thus culminating in an appropriate order, as expeditiously as is possible, but not later than three months thereafter. 19. I reiteratingly clarify that this Court has not made any observation which is intended to be used against one section of the doctors or the other; and that the Government will deal with in each of these issues in a dispassionate manner, but adverting to the best interest of the victim, to every extent necessary. This writ petition is thus ordered.