IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.
“A” - Petitioner
Versus
State of Jharkhand through the Secretary, Department of Social Welfare, Women and Child Development, Project Building, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District-Ranchi., Ors. - Respondents
W.P. (Cr.) No. 421 of 2022
Decided On : 14-09-2022
Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act - Termination of Pregnancy - Sections 3, 4, 5
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a petition for direction to provide a shelter home for a visually impaired victim of gang rape and to constitute a Medical Board for termination of her pregnancy. The Medical Board found termination at 28 weeks risky.
Finding of the Court:
The Court considered the Medical Board report and the provisions of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, and concluded that termination of pregnancy at 28 weeks would put the victim's life in danger.
Issues: The main issue was whether termination of pregnancy at 28 weeks was justified and legal under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court's decision was influenced by the clear finding of the Medical Board that termination at 28 weeks was risky, and the provisions of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, which permit termination only in specific circumstances.
Final Decision: The Court disposed of the petition and issued directions for the victim's welfare, including proper medical care, compensation, and rehabilitation.
JUDGMENT :
1. Considering the nature of issue engaging attention of this Court in this matter, the cause title of this case will now be read as under:
“A”
v.
State of Jharkhand through the Secretary, Department of Social Welfare, Women and Child Development, Project Building, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District- Ranchi & others.
2. Heard Mr. Shailesh Poddar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Kishore Kumar Singh, learned S.C.-V assisted by Mr. Vishnu Prabhakar Pathak, learned counsel for the respondent-State and Dr. Ashok Kumar Singh assisted by Mr. Shivam Singh and Ms. Madhu Priya, learned counsel for the respondent-RIMS.
3. This petition has been filed for direction to provide a shelter home for the "A" for her safety and security and as per the needs of the "A" considering she is 100% visually impaired. The prayer has also been made for direction of constituting a Medical Board for termination of the fetus. The further prayer has been made for direction to appoint a senior female medical practitioner and social worker to take care of the "A".
4. The "A" was subjected to gang rape in the year 2018 where an FIR was lodged bearing Nagri P.S. Case No.191/2018 under Section 354/376D of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4/8 of the POCSO Act. The charge-sheet has been filed in the said case before the court of the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner IV-cum-Special Judge (POCSO Act), Ranchi under Section 376(2)(f)/376(2)(i)/376(3) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4/6 of the POCSO Act against her own brother and uncle. She was further subjected to rape by her own family members.
5. Mr. Shailesh Poddar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the "A" was subjected to gang rape by her own family members. He further submits that at present the "A" is living with her father, who is a rickshaw puller and he has to stay out during the day for earning livelihood. He also submits that the "A" is complete blind.
6. Mr. Kishore Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the respondent-State on instruction submits that there is no rehabilitation centre in the capital city of Ranchi and the said centers are only available at Ramgarh and Hazaribagh, which are under the scheme of the Union of India.
7. Seeing the nature of vulnerability of the "A", this Court vide order dated 08.09.2022 directed the RIMS Director to constitute a Medical Board to examine the "A" and to find out whether pregnancy can be terminated or not. Pursuant thereto, the RIMS has constituted a Medical Board. The report of the Medical Board has been placed on record. In the Medical Board, Dr. Sarita Tirkey, HOD Obst. & Gynae, Dr. Rajiv Mishra, HOD Neonatal, Dr. Ajay Baxla, HOD Psychiatry, Dr. C.B. Sharma, Professor of Medicine, Dr. Ladhu Lakra, HOD Anaesthesia and Dr. Suresh Kumar Toppo, Professor of Radiology are the members and after examining the "A", the Medical Board found that the termination of 28 weeks pregnancy is risky. The report of the Medical Board is quoted herein below:
“Medical Board Report
We have examined the lady Puja Kumar, aged 19 years, of case No. W.P. (Cr.) 421/2022 vide Superintendent RIMS letter no.3592 dated 09-09-2022.
According to the history, clinical examination and investigations the board opines that:-
1. Regarding the length of her pregnancy:
a) By LMP (last menstrual period) March 2022, date not remembered by patient so the length of pregnancy by LMP is inconclusive.
b) Clinically it is 26 to 28 weeks of gestation.
c) By Ultrasound it is 25 weeks + 01 day of gestation. No obvious gross Congenital Anomaly has been detected. As such according to the MTP act, M.T.P. beyond 24 weeks with no congenital anomaly of the fetus is not permissible (MTP Act Amendment 12 October 2021)
2. Regarding her general conditions: Clinically and by investigation reports, she seems to be almost physically fit; except for her mild anaemia (Hb 9.5gm/dl), which can be treated according to the need, and her blindness.
3. The termination of pregnancy at this stage is associated with
AI
The termination of pregnancy is only permitted under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act when specific conditions are fulfilled, and the welfare of the pregnant woman is a paramount consideratio....
The court upheld the strict provisions of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, emphasizing consent and mental health while ultimately denying the termination due to associated risks.
The court permitted the termination of a minor's pregnancy beyond the statutory limit due to mental trauma and lack of fetal abnormalities, emphasizing judicial discretion in sensitive cases.
Termination of 28-week high-risk pregnancy of minor victim permitted beyond statutory limit, safeguarding physical/mental health and right to dignity under Article 21 based on Medical Board opinion.
The right to life of a fetus underpins legal decisions regarding pregnancy termination, emphasizing no termination is allowed without substantial health risks present.
Termination of pregnancy beyond 24 weeks is permitted only for substantial foetal abnormalities or immediate health risks; in absence, proper medical care must be ensured.
Termination of pregnancy beyond 24 weeks requires substantial fetal abnormalities; absence of such conditions leads to non-approval under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the eligibility for medical termination of pregnancy of a minor victim of sexual assault under the statutory framework of the Medical Terminatio....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.