Japanese Supreme Court Rules Forced Sterilization Law Unconstitutional, Orders Compensation for Victims

The Supreme Court of Japan has declared the now-defunct Eugenic Protection Law unconstitutional, ordering the government to compensate victims of forced sterilization. The decision stemmed from a unified judgment on five different appeals originating from Tokyo, Sendai, Sapporo, and Osaka, with the court ruling the law violated Article 13 of the Japanese Constitution, which emphasizes respect for individual dignity and personality.

The court also criticized the 20-year statute of limitations on compensation claims, asserting that it was inconsistent with the principle of justice and fairness. Lower courts had previously been constrained by this statute despite acknowledging the law’s severe defects.

The Eugenic Protection Law, enacted in 1948, was aimed at controlling the population growth in post-war Japan. It facilitated the sterilization of individuals with hereditary physical or mental disorders, often without consent. According to government reports, around 25,000 individuals were sterilized under this law, including 16,500 involuntarily.

In 2019, Japan’s National Diet (parliament) enacted a law to provide a lump sum of 3.2 million yen to each victim of the Eugenic Protection Law. The 2019 legislation included an official apology to the victims. However, victims and their advocates sought not just monetary compensation but also the recognition of their fundamental rights being violated.

Prior to the Supreme Court ruling, Koji Niisato, co-chair of the National Eugenic Protection Law Victims’ Lawyers Group, had appealed for a swift decision to restore the victims’ honor. He highlighted the significant impact the law had on individuals by stripping them of their human dignity.

This recent ruling by the Supreme Court stands as a significant moment in acknowledging and redressing historical injustices, mandating the state to compensate those who endured forced sterilizations under the eugenic policies of the mid-20th century. More detailed information on the recent Supreme Court decision can be found here.