Interpretation of procedural compliance under the MTP Act and IPC for abortion cases, affirming the need for proper legal protocols.

JUDGMENT :

S.M. MODAK, J.

1. The very moot question about “interpretation of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 (“MTP Act”) and its corelation to the provisions of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC”) is involved in this Revision Application. Apart from arguments advanced by learned Senior Advocate Shri.Mohite and assisted by Mr.Talkute, the learned APPs in charge of this Revision, Mr.Kamkhedkar and Ms.Phad have argued the matter as well. However, as said above very basic questions are involved, as per order dated 19^th March 2025, I have called learned Advocate General to address the Court on certain issues. He did address the Court. Even, I have heard Mr.Talkute.

2. There are 13 abortion cases noticed by the First-Informant Shri.Belpatre attached to Rural Hospital, Sangola, District: Solapur. Present Applicants being Medical Practitioners have aborted/done procedure on 13 pregnant women in their Dhanashree/New Dhanashree Hospital (charge-sheet mentions 12 but in a table prepared by Applicants, the number is 13). According to the First-Informant, there was no justification for performing abortion and the procedure is also not followed. There was a charge-sheet filed for the offences under sections 312, 313, 201 read with 34 of IPC and under section 5 of MTP Act, 1971 before the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Pandharpur. Both the Applicants / Accused pleaded for discharge. It was rejected on 15^th February 2019 and that is why, this Revision Application is filed.

3. After hearing both the sides at great length, this Court is required to decide following questions:-

(a) Whether in those 13 cases, there was abortion performed in the sense understood in medical parlance?

(b) Whether these abortions violate the substantive provisions of MTP Act and more specifically Section 3?

(c) Whether procedure laid down in the MTP Act, MTP Rules and MTP Regulations was not followed?

(d) Whether the provisions of IPC were breached ?

(e) Whether the issues raised can be decided in favour of the Applicants at pre-trial stage or whether they need to be decided after conclusion of the trial?

Prosecution case

4. The prosecution case, from the charge-sheet, needs to be stated. It is as follows:-

(a) The First-Informant – Sandip Belpatre is doctor working as a Medical Practitioner – Rural Hospital – Sangola, District : Solapur. He was authorised to raid the hospitals and centres to verify about the implementation of the Pre-conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 (“PCPNDT Act”).

(b) He got information about the illegal termination of pregnancies performed in the New Dhanashree Hospital and Maternity Home belonging to Doctor Jadhavar. Accordingly, he along with other staff raided New Dhanashree Hospital and Maternity Home on 7^th February 2018. He noticed two lady patients admitted in the hospital for the purpose of termination.

(c) He inspected the record. He found following lacunae/irregularities:-

(i) From April-2017 upto 7^th February 2018, there were three MTP and three IUD (Intrauterine Contraceptive Device).

(ii) Earlier, registration under the provisions of the Maharashtra Nursing Homes Registration Act, 1949 (“Nursing Homes Act”) was standing in the name of Dhanashree Hospital and Maternity Home, doctor Suhas Jadhavar. There was also approval in the same name under the MTP Act.

(iii) He was convicted for violation of PCPNDT Act for two years.

(iv) He applied for renewal of registration under Nursing Homes Act (as period has expired) to Civil Surgeon. However, this proposal was kept pending as sonography issue was pending with Maharashtra Medical Council (letter dated 16^th March 2017 : Page No.100).

(v) However, at the same place, New Dhanashree Hospital and Maternity Home was started by Mrs.Ashwini Jadhavar after obtaining registration under Nursing Homes Act.

(vi) At no point of time, the approval in the name of Dhanashree Hospital as per MTP Act was cancelled/suspended.

(vii) The record in Form–C about con