2017 Supreme(Bom) 2639
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY AT AURANGABAD BENCH
R.M. BORDE, S.M. GAVHANE, JJ.
'X' - Petitioners
Versus
Union of India and Ors. - Respondents
Writ Petition No. 9915 of 2017
Decided On : 10-08-2017
For the Petitioner: R.S. Deshmukh, Adv. i/by P.S. Pawar and M.S. Biyani, Advs.
For the Respondents: Bhushan Kulkarni, ASG.
The judgment established the importance of respecting a woman's freedom to choose in cases of unwanted pregnancy resulting from an offense like rape, emphasizing the provisions of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971.
Headnote:
PREGNANCY - MEDICAL TERMINATION OF PREGNANCY - Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971, Sections 3, 4, 5
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a victim of physical abuse and rape, sought a writ of mandamus to terminate her unwanted pregnancy. A medical board confirmed the pregnancy and assessed the risk of termination.
Finding of the Court:
The court recognized the petitioner's right to make reproductive choices and emphasized the importance of respecting a woman's freedom to choose, especially in cases of unwanted pregnancy resulting from an offense like rape.
Issues: The key issue was whether the petitioner should be permitted to terminate her pregnancy under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the provisions of the Act, particularly Sections 3, 4, and 5, to determine the legality of terminating the pregnancy. It emphasized the importance of considering the mental health of the pregnant woman and the exceptions provided in Section 5 for cases where termination is necessary to save the woman's life.
Final Decision: The court granted the petitioner's request to terminate her pregnancy and directed the Government Medical College & Hospital to complete the procedure under expert supervision. It also ordered the preservation of tissue and blood samples for forensic testing.
R.M. BORDE, J.
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of learned counsel for the respective parties.
2. The unfortunate victim who has already suffered physical abuse and mental torture has approached this Court seeking direction in the nature of writ of mandamus directing respondent no. 3 to carry out termination of unwanted pregnancy which is result of physical abuse thrust against her.
3. Petitioner contends that she has been physically abused by accused in crime registered at Cidco Police station, Aurangabad on 30.07.2017. Accused are stated to be father and son. Petitioner states that pregnancy is carried by her as a result of physical abuse committed against her by accused and that, she is entitled to terminate the unwanted pregnancy.
4. Petitioner, at her request, was referred for medical examination to the Board constituted at Government Medical College and Hospital, Aurangabad. Petitioner was medically examined by five members Expert Committee constituting of
(1) Dr. Shrinivas Gadappa (Chairman) Prof. & HOD, OBGY,
(2) Dr. P.S. Patil, (Member) Prof. & HOD Paediatrics,
(3) Dr. Varsha Rote, (Member) Prof. & HOD, Radiology,
(4) Dr. Suhas Jewalikar (Member) HOD, Anaesthesia, and
(5) Dr. Pradip Deshmukh, (Member) HOD, Psychiatry.
5. The Committee has recorded following findings in the report tendered to this Court:
1. From general medical examination she has no active medical complaints.
2. Obstetric examination her vital parameters are within normal limits with 2224 weeks of pregnancy.
3. Ultrasonographic examination suggestive of single live intrauterine foetus of approximate 24 weeks 2 days +/1 week. No gross lethal foetal anomaly.
4. Psychiatric examination, clinically she is of average intelligence. No active current psychopathology. Her concept and judgment are intact. She is aware about the incident and consequences about the continuation of pregnancy.
6. The conclusions of the Committee are as follows:
1. Current pregnancy, on clinical and ultrasonographical examination is around 24 weeks by gestation. No gross congenital anomalies in the foetus.
2. Her Physical and Mental Health is within normal limits.
3. Risk of termination of pregnancy is within normal acceptable limits.
7. The Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 provides for termination of certain pregnancy by the registered Medical Practitioner. Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Act are relevant which read thus:
3. When pregnancies may be terminated by registered medical practitioners-
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), a registered medical practitioner shall not be guilty of any offence under that Code or under any other law for the time being in force, if any pregnancy is terminated by him in accordance with the provisions of this Act.
(2) Subject to the provisions of subsection (4), a pregnancy may be terminated by a registered medical practitioner,
(a) where the length of the pregnancy does not exceed twelve weeks, if such medical practitioner is, or
(b) where the length of the pregnancy exceeds twelve weeks but does not exceed twenty weeks, if not less than two registered medical practitioners are, of opinion, formed in good faith, that-
(i) the continuance of the pregnancy would involve a risk to the life of the pregnant woman or of grave injury to her physical or mental health; or
(ii) there is a substantial risk that if the child were born, it would suffer from such physical or mental abnormalities as to be seriously handicapped.
Explanation I - Where any pregnancy is alleged by the pregnant woman to have been caused by rape, the anguish caused by such pregnancy shall be presumed to constitute a grave injury to the mental health of the pregnancy woman.
Explanation II - Where any pregnancy occurs as a result of failure of any device or method used by any married woman or her husband for the purpose of limiting the number of children, the anguish caused by such unwanted pregnancy may be presumed t