Two Finger Test

The "two finger test" is a controversial medical examination that has been used in India to determine whether a woman has had sexual intercourse or not. The test involves inserting two fingers into a woman's vagina to check for the presence of a hymen or the size of the vaginal opening. However, the test has been widely criticized by human rights activists and medical experts, who argue that it is unreliable, unscientific, and violates the woman's dignity and privacy.

The two finger test is often conducted as part of a medical examination to determine whether a woman has been raped or not. However, the test is based on the myth that the presence or absence of a hymen can indicate whether a woman is a virgin or has had sexual intercourse. This myth has been debunked by medical experts, who point out that the hymen can be stretched or torn by a variety of non-sexual activities, such as sports, tampon use, or even just walking or sitting.

Moreover, the test is often conducted without the woman's informed consent or without proper counseling, which can cause her to feel humiliated, violated, and traumatized. Many women have reported that the test is painful, invasive, and degrading, and can lead to further psychological harm and social stigma.

In response to these concerns, the Supreme Court of India has banned the two finger test in 2013, stating that it has no scientific basis and is a violation of the woman's right to privacy, dignity, and bodily integrity. The Court also directed the authorities to ensure that no doctor or medical professional conducts the test, and that no report is prepared on the basis of the test.

However, despite the ban, the two finger test is still being conducted in some parts of India, particularly in rural areas, where awareness about women's rights and healthcare is low. This highlights the need for more awareness and education on women's health and rights, and the need for stricter enforcement of the ban.

Bodily autonomy and two finger test

The "two finger test" is a medical examination that has been used in India to determine whether a woman has had sexual intercourse or not. The test has been widely criticized for being unreliable, unscientific, and violating the woman's dignity and privacy. The constitutional validity of the test has been a subject of debate in India, and several cases have been filed challenging its legality and ethicality.

The two finger test has been challenged on the grounds that it violates a woman's right to privacy, dignity, and bodily integrity, which are protected under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. Article 21 states that "No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to a procedure established by law." This has been interpreted by the Indian courts to include the right to privacy and bodily integrity, and to prohibit any form of degrading or inhumane treatment.

In 2013, the Supreme Court of India declared the two finger test to be unconstitutional in the case of Lillu v. State of Haryana. The Court held that the test violates a woman's right to privacy and dignity, and that it has no scientific basis. The Court also directed the authorities to ensure that no doctor or medical professional conducts the test, and that no report is prepared on the basis of the test.

The Court also stated that the test violates the principle of gender equality, which is enshrined in Article 14 of the Indian Constitution. Article 14 guarantees that all persons are equal before the law and prohibits discrimination on the grounds of sex, among other things. The Court held that the test reinforces stereotypes and myths about female sexuality, and perpetuates discrimination against women.

The Supreme Court also held in the case of State of Maharashtra v. Madhukar Narayan Mardikar that the right to privacy is not absolute and can be limited by the state in the interest of public morality, public order, and the protection of the rights of others. However, the Court stated that any limitation on the right to privacy must be reasonable and proportionate, and must be based on a valid law.

Bodily autonomy is the right of individuals to have control over their own bodies and make decisions about their health and well-being without interference from others. This right is essential for ensuring personal dignity, privacy, and autonomy, and is protected by international human rights law. However, women's bodily autonomy has often been compromised by social, cultural, and legal barriers, which limit their access to healthcare, information, and reproductive rights. In this article, we will discuss the importance of bodily autonomy for women and cite relevant case laws in India.

The concept of bodily autonomy is recognized by various international human rights instruments, including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women. These instruments recognize the right to health and the right to access healthcare services without discrimination or coercion.

In India, the right to bodily autonomy is protected by Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty. The Supreme Court of India has interpreted this right to include the right to privacy, dignity, and bodily integrity, and has held that any interference with these rights must be based on a valid law and be proportionate to the objective sought to be achieved.

The right to bodily autonomy has been affirmed in several landmark cases in India. In the case of Suchita Srivastava v. Chandigarh Administration, the Supreme Court held that a woman has the right to make decisions about her own body and reproductive health, and that any interference with this right must be based on a compelling state interest. The Court struck down a provision of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act that required the consent of a woman's husband or guardian for an abortion, stating that it violated a woman's right to bodily autonomy.

In the case of Devika Biswas v. Union of India, the Delhi High Court held that the government's decision to make the Human Papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine mandatory for schoolgirls did not violate their right to bodily autonomy. The Court held that the vaccine was safe and effective, and that the government's decision was based on public health concerns.

However, women's bodily autonomy in India is often compromised by social, cultural, and legal barriers, which limit their access to healthcare, information, and reproductive rights. Women face discrimination and stigma when seeking healthcare services, particularly for reproductive health issues such as abortion, contraception, and sterilization. Women also face restrictions on their mobility and decision-making power, which limit their ability to make informed choices about their health and well-being.

Scientific Credibility of two finger test

There is no scientific credibility to support the use of the two finger test as a means of determining sexual activity, virginity or consent. The two finger test, also known as the "per vaginal examination", involves the insertion of two fingers into a woman's vagina to assess its size and looseness, supposedly as an indicator of sexual activity or consent.

The use of the two finger test has been widely criticized by medical and human rights organizations for several reasons. Firstly, the test is not based on any scientific evidence and is not reliable in determining whether a woman has had sexual intercourse or not. The looseness of the vaginal muscles can be influenced by various factors, including age, childbirth, exercise, and medical conditions, which can result in false positive or negative results.

Moreover, the use of the two finger test violates the fundamental right to privacy and bodily autonomy, and can be traumatic and humiliating for women. The test is often performed without the informed consent of the woman and can be used to blame and stigmatize women who have been raped or sexually assaulted.

In 2013, the Indian Ministry of Health and Family Welfare issued guidelines banning the use of the two finger test in cases of sexual assault, and instructed medical professionals to rely on other methods of medical examination to collect evidence. The guidelines state that "the "two-finger test" is unscientific, degrading, and embarrassing to the woman being examined, and cannot be considered as evidence."

The two-finger test, also known as the per-vaginal examination or PV examination, is a controversial practice that has been used to assess the status of a woman's hymen and her sexual history. However, the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare in India has released guidelines that strongly discourage the use of this test.

The guidelines state that the two-finger test should not be performed as a routine procedure, as it is not a reliable or scientifically valid method of determining a woman's sexual history. The guidelines further state that the test may cause physical and psychological harm to the woman, and that it can be traumatic and invasive.

The guidelines also recommend that healthcare professionals receive training to understand the impact of sexual violence on women, and that they be trained to provide sensitive and supportive care to women who have experienced sexual violence. Additionally, the guidelines recommend that healthcare professionals who work with survivors of sexual violence should receive regular supervision and support.

Overall, the guidelines from the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare emphasize the importance of treating survivors of sexual violence with compassion, respect, and dignity, and of providing them with appropriate medical care and support.

Judicial approach on Two Finger Test

The Supreme Court of India has also criticized the use of the two finger test in several cases, including Lillu @ Rajesh & Anr. v. State of Haryana (2013) and Sakshi v. Union of India (2004). In the Lillu case, the Court held that the use of the two finger test was an invasion of the right to privacy and dignity, and ordered that the test should be banned.

The Supreme Court of India has given several guidelines regarding the use of the two finger test in cases of sexual assault in India. These guidelines are intended to protect the rights and dignity of women who have been victims of sexual violence, and to ensure that medical examinations are conducted in a professional and scientific manner.

Some of the key guidelines issued by the Supreme Court of India regarding the two finger test are as follows:

1. The two finger test should not be conducted as a routine practice in cases of sexual assault. It should only be performed if there is a specific medical indication for doing so.
    
2. The two finger test should not be conducted without the informed consent of the woman. The woman should be informed about the purpose of the examination, the procedures involved, and the possible risks and benefits.
    
3. The examination should be conducted in the presence of a female nurse or attendant, and in a private and comfortable setting. The woman should be allowed to refuse the examination at any time if she feels uncomfortable or distressed.
    
4. The medical examination should be conducted in a professional and scientific manner, with due regard for the privacy and dignity of the woman. The examiner should document the findings of the examination in a clear and objective manner, and should not draw any conclusions about the woman's sexual activity or consent based on the results.
    
5. The use of the two finger test as a means of determining sexual activity or consent should be discouraged, as it is unscientific and violates the rights and dignity of the woman. The results of the test should not be used as evidence in a court of law.
    

Here are some of the key judgments given by various High Courts and the Supreme Court of India on the use of the two finger test:

1. State of Maharashtra v. Madhukar Narayan Mardikar (1991): In this case, the Bombay High Court held that the use of the two finger test was an invasion of the woman's privacy, and should only be conducted if there was a specific medical indication for doing so.
    
2. State of Rajasthan v. Om Prakash (2002): In this case, the Rajasthan High Court held that the use of the two finger test was unreliable and unscientific, and should not be used to determine sexual activity or consent.
    
3. State of Haryana v. Raj Singh (2002): In this case, the Punjab and Haryana High Court held that the use of the two finger test was not a reliable method of determining sexual activity or consent, and should not be used as evidence in a court of law.
    
4. Sakshi v. Union of India (2004): In this case, the Supreme Court of India held that the two finger test was an invasion of the woman's privacy, and should only be conducted if there was a specific medical indication for doing so. The Court also held that the test should not be used to determine sexual activity or consent.
    
5. G. S. Grewal v. Union Territory, Chandigarh (2011): In this case, the Punjab and Haryana High Court held that the use of the two finger test was an invasion of the woman's privacy, and should only be conducted if there was a specific medical indication for doing so.
    
6. State of Uttar Pradesh v. Chhotey Lal (2011): In this case, the Allahabad High Court held that the use of the two finger test was unreliable and unscientific, and should not be used to determine sexual activity or consent.
    
7. Devkiran v. State of U.P. (2012): In this case, the Allahabad High Court held that the use of the two finger test was an invasion of the woman's privacy, and should only be conducted if there was a specific medical indication for doing so.
    
8. Amit S/o Narayan Nagrale v. State of Maharashtra (2016): In this case, the Bombay High Court held that the use of the two finger test was an invasion of the woman's privacy, and should only be conducted if there was a specific medical indication for doing so.

Conclusion
The two finger test is a medical examination used to assess the sexual history of a woman who has been the victim of sexual violence. In this test, two fingers are inserted into the woman's vagina to check for laxity of the vaginal muscles, which some doctors believe is an indication of previous sexual activity. However, this test is not based on any scientific evidence and is not a reliable method of determining sexual activity or consent.

The two finger test is a highly invasive procedure that can be traumatic and humiliating for the woman. It involves the insertion of fingers into the most private and intimate part of the body, without the woman's consent or input. This can cause a great deal of psychological and emotional distress, and can also lead to physical discomfort and pain.

Moreover, the two finger test violates the privacy of women because it treats them as objects of suspicion and disrespect. It is often conducted in a manner that is insensitive to the woman's needs and concerns, and can cause her to feel stigmatized and dehumanized.

The use of the two finger test also reinforces harmful gender stereotypes and contributes to the culture of victim blaming. By suggesting that a woman's sexual history is relevant to the determination of sexual violence, the test implies that a woman's behavior and choices are to blame for her assault. This can cause further trauma to the woman, and can discourage other survivors from coming forward and seeking justice.

The two finger test is a controversial and outdated medical examination that has no scientific basis and violates the woman's dignity and privacy. The ban on the test by the Supreme Court of India is a step in the right direction towards promoting women's health and rights, but more needs to be done to ensure that the ban is strictly enforced and that women are informed about their rights and options. Only then can we hope to create a society where women's health and well-being are protected and respected.

The ban on the two finger test has been welcomed by human rights activists and medical experts, who argue that it is a step towards promoting women's health and rights in India. However, more needs to be done to ensure that the ban is strictly enforced and that women are informed about their rights and options. The government should also invest in alternative medical examinations that are based on scientific evidence and respect a woman's privacy and dignity.

The constitutional validity of the two finger test in India has been challenged on the grounds that it violates a woman's right to privacy, dignity, and bodily integrity. The Supreme Court has declared the test to be unconstitutional and has directed the authorities to ensure that it is not conducted by medical professionals. The ban on the test is a step towards promoting women's health and rights, but more needs to be done to ensure that the ban is strictly enforced and that women are informed about their rights and options.

Bodily autonomy is a fundamental right that is essential for ensuring personal dignity, privacy, and autonomy. Women's bodily autonomy has been affirmed in several landmark cases in India, but more needs to be done to eliminate the social, cultural, and legal barriers that limit women's access to healthcare, information, and reproductive rights. Governments and civil society organizations should work together to promote women's bodily autonomy and ensure that their rights are respected and protected.

The two finger test is an outdated and unscientific practice that has no credibility as a means of determining sexual activity, virginity or consent. Its use has been widely criticized by medical and human rights organizations, and has been banned by the Indian government and the Supreme Court. The use of the test can cause trauma and humiliation for women, and violates their fundamental right to privacy and bodily autonomy.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court of India has issued guidelines to ensure that medical examinations in cases of sexual assault are conducted in a professional, scientific, and ethical manner, with due regard for the privacy and dignity of the woman. The use of the two finger test as a means of determining sexual activity or consent is discouraged, and its results should not be used as evidence in a court of law.

These judgments by various High Courts and the Supreme Court of India have consistently held that the two finger test is an unreliable and unscientific method of determining sexual activity or consent, and that its use is an invasion of the woman's privacy and dignity. These judgments have resulted in guidelines being issued to ensure that medical examinations in cases of sexual assault are conducted in a professional, scientific, and ethical manner, with due regard for the privacy and dignity of the woman.

Also read:

• Doctrine Of The Two Finger Test
• Two-Finger Test an Impertinent Approach
• Supreme Court Bans Two-Finger Test In Rape Cases
• Desist From Undertaking Two Finger Test, Avoid Disclosing Rape Survivors Identity