A Delhi Court granted permission for gangster Sandeep alias Kala Jatheri to undergo an in-vitro fertilization (IVF) procedure while incarcerated in Tihar Jail. The court's decision followed a request made on behalf of Jatheri, who married Anuradha Chaudhary on March 12, 2024. The court noted that the couple sought to protect their lineage by procreating.

Additional Sessions Judge Deepak Wasan allowed the application for the collection of semen samples within the jail. On June 9, the judge ordered that medical professionals from a designated hospital visit Tihar Jail to collect these samples under specific conditions to ensure privacy and proper handling. The collection was scheduled for June 14 between 6:00 AM and 7:00 AM.

The application highlighted that Jatheri's wife was undergoing assisted reproductive treatment at a hospital in Gurugram, and it was essential to provide a fresh semen sample due to time-sensitive medical requirements. Counsel for Jatheri indicated that he had previously been granted custody parole for his marriage and had complied with all conditions set by the court.

The court also sought reports from AIIMS and RML Hospitals regarding the feasibility of collecting semen samples in jail. AIIMS confirmed that such procedures could be conducted under appropriate care, emphasizing the need for timely transfer of samples to ensure viability for IVF treatment.

This legal development reflects ongoing discussions around reproductive rights within correctional facilities and highlights judicial considerations regarding inmates' family planning needs.

Original article

The provided text on the Delhi Court's decision to grant permission for gangster Sandeep alias Kala Jatheri to undergo IVF while incarcerated in Tihar Jail reveals a multitude of biases and manipulative language. One of the most striking aspects is the cultural and ideological bias that favors the rights of prisoners, particularly those with a romantic partner. The text presents a sympathetic narrative, framing Jatheri's request as a legitimate attempt to protect his lineage by procreating with his wife, Anuradha Chaudhary. This framing assumes that prisoners have inherent rights to family planning, which may not be universally accepted or applicable in all contexts.

The use of emotionally charged language, such as "protect their lineage," creates a sense of urgency and moral imperative around Jatheri's request. This linguistic bias nudges the reader toward sympathizing with Jatheri's cause, rather than considering alternative perspectives or potential consequences. Furthermore, the text implies that denying Jatheri's request would be an infringement on his human rights, without providing sufficient context or counterarguments.

The narrative also exhibits structural and institutional bias by presenting the court's decision as a straightforward victory for justice and compassion. The text fails to interrogate the underlying systems of authority that enabled this decision or consider potential criticisms from opposing viewpoints. For instance, one might question whether granting IVF access to prisoners sets a precedent for other privileges or undermines prison security.

The selection and omission bias is evident in the way certain facts are highlighted while others are left unmentioned. The text mentions that Jatheri had previously been granted custody parole for his marriage but omits any discussion about potential risks associated with allowing prisoners access to sensitive medical procedures within jail facilities. This selective framing creates an incomplete picture of the situation and may lead readers to overlook potential concerns.

A further example of linguistic bias can be seen in the use of passive constructions that obscure agency, such as "the court noted" or "the judge ordered." These constructions downplay the active role played by individuals involved in making decisions about Jatheri's treatment and instead emphasize bureaucratic processes.

Moreover, economic and class-based bias are subtly present through implicit assumptions about who has access to reproductive healthcare services outside prison walls. The fact that Anuradha Chaudhary is undergoing assisted reproductive treatment at a hospital in Gurugram suggests that she has some level of socioeconomic privilege compared to others who may face barriers accessing similar services.

In terms of confirmation bias, the material accepts assumptions without question regarding prisoners' rights to family planning without engaging with opposing viewpoints or considering broader societal implications. For example, it does not address how granting IVF access might impact prison populations' dynamics or create new challenges for correctional facilities.

Lastly, temporal bias manifests through presentism; there is no consideration given to historical contexts surrounding reproductive rights within correctional facilities or how they have evolved over time.

Sources are not explicitly cited in this article; however, if we were evaluating sources generally related to this topic (e.g., news outlets covering similar stories), we would likely find sources from organizations advocating for prisoner rights alongside those representing law enforcement agencies concerned about maintaining order within prisons – both groups could exhibit different ideological slants depending on their primary objectives