Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Prathiba M. Singh, J.
X - Appellant
Versus
GNCTD - Respondent
W.P.(C) 16607 of 2022
Decided On : 06-12-2022
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. recognition of women's right to choose (Para 2) |
| 2. petitioner's medical history and ultrasound reports (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 8 , 9) |
| 3. petitioner's consultations and seeking termination (Para 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 4. prayer for court intervention and medical board formation (Para 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 5. factors affecting the decision to terminate pregnancy (Para 24 , 26 , 39 , 40 , 41) |
| 6. court considerations in recognizing women's reproductive rights (Para 38 , 42 , 43) |
| 7. final decision permitted under medical guidelines (Para 44 , 46) |
JUDGMENT
Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)
1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
2. The right of a pregnant woman to terminate her pregnancy or abort the foetus has been the subject matter of debate across the world. This right gives a woman the ultimate choice as to whether to give birth to the child which she has conceived. India is amongst the countries that recognises this choice of the woman, in its law, and has even expanded this right in recent times with amendments permitting termination at an advanced stage, under various circumstances. While recognising the choice of the woman - the ultimate giver of life in this world, beyond the Omnipresent, such cases highlight the severe dilemma that women undergo while taking a decision to terminate her pregnancy. Courts are no exception - in that Judges have to grapple with issues that are not merely factual and legal but also involve ethical and moral factors. With the emergence of modern technologies to detect abnormalitiesin an unborn child, the issues surrounding termination and abortion are bound to become more and more complex. Such technologies coupled with the unpredictability in ascertaining the degree of abnormalities, even by medical practitioners, pose challenges to the manner in which society may grow in the future.
3. The present petition has been filed by Mrs. X who, after her marriage in November, 2021, is stated to have conceived a child in March, 2022. The Petitioner is in the thirty-third week of gestation, and the due date of delivery is stated to be around mid-January, 2023.
4. The Petitioner underwent her first ultrasound at a diagnostic centre situated in Noida, where she resides along with her husband. The first ultrasound was conducted at four weeks and six days of her gestational period. The first ultrasound report dated 14th May, 2022, reads as under:
5. The second ultrasound was conducted, at the same Diagnostic Centre, at seven weeks and four days of her gestational period. The second ultrasound report dated 1st June, 2022, reads as under:
"USG EARLY PREGNANCY
Lmp 14.03.22 ga 11 wks 2 days aua 7 wks 4 days
Scan shows single intrauterine regular Gestational sac MSD measuring 42.4 mm corresponding to 9wks1Days with adequate decidual reaction noted all around the sac.
Single live fetus with CRL 13.6 mm ~_7weeks7days of gestation is noted.
Fetal heart rate= is present, 156 bpm, regular, rhythmic, No adenexal mass.
Cervix appears normal measuring 3.8 cm. Internal Os is closed.
Note: not all congenital anomalies can be seen on ultrasound. This is just a professional opinion not for medico - legal purpose. Declaration: by conducting usg, i have neither detected nor disclosed the (sonologist) sex of fetus of the pregnant women to any body."
6. The third ultrasound was conducted at sixteen weeks and five days of her gestational period. The third ultrasound report dated 7th August, 2022, reads as under:
"USG LOWER ABDOMEN (PREGNANCY)
Lmp ? 13.03.22 ga 21 wks 0 days aua 16 wks 5 days
Scans show single live fetus in cephalic presentation.
Fetal heart rate = 154 beats per minute.
Fetal heart rate and aortic pulsations and limb, body movements seen under real time scanning and appear normal.
Placenta is anterior, grade I maturity, 2.9cm away from os, low lying
Liquor appears adequate for POG.
Fetal skull, spine, gastric bubble, kidneys, urinary bladder appear normal.
No obvious congenital abnormality seen in pre
AI
The court upheld that a pregnant woman's right to terminate a pregnancy beyond the statutory limit can be granted due to severe foetal health abnormalities affecting her mental health, interpreting t....
The court establishes that termination of pregnancy beyond 24 weeks is permissible when substantial foetal abnormalities are present, aligning with recent amendments to the MTP Act.
The right to terminate pregnancy beyond 20 weeks in cases of foetal abnormalities incompatible with life, as interpreted under Sections 3(2)(b) and 5(1) of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1....
The court emphasized the balance between a woman's autonomy in reproductive choices and the medical risks associated with advanced pregnancy, directing a re-examination by a different Medical Board.
The court affirmed the right to terminate pregnancy in cases of substantial foetal abnormalities, emphasizing the necessity of medical opinion in protecting the mother's health and reproductive choic....
Recent amendments to the MTP Act, 1971 permit termination of pregnancy beyond 24 weeks in case of substantial foetal abnormalities, and the Court's decision is based on the interpretation of the MTP ....
The right to terminate a pregnancy beyond specified limits is upheld when substantial fetal abnormalities are confirmed.
The judgment underlines the importance of reproductive autonomy and medical advice in cases of severe foetal abnormalities, allowing termination beyond statutory limits if justified.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
