X vs Union Of India - 2023 Supreme(SC) 1795

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(SC) 1795

HIMA KOHLI, B. V. NAGARATHNA
X – Appellant
Versus
Union Of India – Respondent

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Dr. Amit Mishra, Adv., Mr. Rahul Sharma, AOR.
For the Respondents: Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, Ld.ASG, Ms. Sthavi Asthana, Adv., Ms. Ameya Thanvi, Adv., Ms. Manisha Chava, Adv., Mr. Abhijeet Singh, Adv., Ms. Shreya Jain, Adv., Ms. Chitrangda Rastravara, Adv., Ms. Shagun Thakur, Adv., Mr. Nithin Chowdhary Panduri, Adv., Mr. Uday Bhan Singh, Adv., Mr. G.S. Makker, AOR

Table of Content
1. petitioner's request rationale for abortion. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6)
2. medical board's opinion on termination. (Para 7 , 8 , 12 , 14)
3. concerns regarding the pregnancy's impact on mental health. (Para 9 , 10 , 11)
4. court's decision to grant permission for termination. (Para 15 , 21)
5. court observations on family planning and societal responsibilities. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20)

ORDER :

1. Rule Nisi.

2. Both the sides are represented.

3. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 32 of the Constitution of India praying inter alia for issuing directions to the respondents to permit the medical termination of her on-going pregnancy under Section 3 (2)(b)(i) and Sections 3 (3) and 5 of the MTP Act¹[Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971] read with Rule 3B of the MTP Rules²[]Medical Termination of Pregnancy Rules, 2003], in any Government hospital, preferably at AIIMS, New Delhi³[All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi] on a plea that she is neither physically, mentally, psychologically or financially prepared to continue with the unwanted pregnancy.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a