IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
VINOD S. BHARDWAJ, J.
X – Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab & Ors. – Respondents
CWP NO. 4885 of 2024 (O&M)
Decided On : 11-03-2024
JUDGMENT
Mr. Vinod S. Bhardwaj, J.
Considering the nature of the case and the future prospects in the life of the young girl who is the petitioner before this Court, Registry is directed to conceal the identity of the petitioner and carry out appropriate steps to hide the details that would disclose or reveal her identity. For the facility of reference, the petitioner shall be referred to as 'X' and the case title be recorded as 'X' v. State of Punjab and others.
2. The present writ petition had been filed on 29.02.2024 for seeking directions to the doctors at Rajindra Hospital, Patiala, to carry out termination of pregnancy of the petitioner by constituting a Medical Board.
3. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the petitioner whose date of birth is (dd/mm/yy) and aged about 18 years 7 months, met a boy around an year ago and they fell in love with each other. As a result of their growing proximity, they entered into physical relations with each other but both of them parted ways later. Petitioner is a student of 12th Standard and during her ongoing Board examinations, she felt pain in her abdomen for which she was diagnosed by the doctors of Rajindra Hospital, Patiala to be pregnant. Petitioner is under immense pressure for having conceived a child when she herself is of tender age and is a student appearing in her 10+2 Board Examinations. She is apprehensive that her entire career and future prospects shall suffer a huge set back in case the pregnancy is not permitted to be terminated at this stage. She is herself of a tender age and is not mentally prepared to give birth. The unwanted pregnancy shall subject her to enhanced social stigma and incarceration. A prayer is thus made for being granted permission for termination of the pregnancy by relying on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Suchita Srivastava and another v. Chandigarh Administration, reported as (2009) 9 SCC 1. The relevant part of the judgment is extracted as under:-
"There is no doubt that a woman's right to make reproductive choices is also a dimension of 'personal liberty' as understood under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It is important to recognise that reproductive choices can be exercised to procreate as well as to abstain from procreating. The crucial consideration is that a woman's right to privacy, dignity and bodily integrity should be respected. This means that there should be no restriction whatsoever on the exercise of reproductive choices such as a woman's right to refuse participation in sexual activity or alternatively the insistence on use of contraceptive methods. Furthermore, women are also free to choose birth-control methods such as undergoing sterilisation procedures. Taken to their logical conclusion, reproductive rights include a woman's entitlement to carry a pregnancy to its full term, to give birth and to subsequently raise children."
4. Considering that a legal issue is involved as to whether the permission for termination of the pregnancy can be granted at this juncture or not, counsel for the respondent-State made a statement that there is no need to file reply and that they shall advance arguments on the petition itself. Additionally, Sh. Vivek Saini, Advocate was also appointed as Amicus by this Court to assist in the matter.
5. When the matter came up for preliminary hearing, vide order dated 29.02.2024, the respondent-State of Punjab was directed to constitute a Medical Board to carry out physical examination of the petitioner and submit its report as regards the mental, physical and psychological status of the petitioner.
6. The petitioner appeared before the said Medical Board and a report was received from the Centre Administrator. The same is extracted as under:-
"Counseling Report-On Dated 04-03-2024, the girl (name concealed) and the girl's father (name concealed) came to the Sakhi one stop Centre, Patiala for counseling as per the order case No.CWP-4885-2024 of the Hon'ble Punjab an
A. Thangal Kunju Musaliar v. M. Venkatachalam Potti (1955) 2 SCR 1196
Badshah v. Urmila Badshah Godse
Balasinor Nagrik Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. Bababhai Shankerlal Pandya
Bengal Immunity Co. v. State of Bihar
Chiranjit Lal Chowdhury v. Union of India 1950 SCR 869
Common Cause v. Union of India
Dharni Sugars and Chemicals Ltd v. Union of India
Francis Coralie Mullin v. Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi
Justice K.C. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India
K. S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India
Kehar Singh v. State (Delhi Admn.)
Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala
KS Puttawamy Union of India (2017) 10 SCC 1
Mamta Verma v. Union of India (2018) 14 SCC 289
Meera Santosh Pal v. Union of India
National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh (2004) 3 SCC 297
Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India
Reserve Bank of India v. Peerless General Finance and Investment Co. Ltd.
Sarmishtha Chakrabortty v. Union of India Secretary
Suchita Srivastava v. Chandigarh Administration
Tapasya Umesh Pisal v. Union of India
AI
The court affirmed that the right to reproductive autonomy under Article 21 applies equally to unmarried women, allowing them to seek termination of pregnancy under changing circumstances.
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 paramount duty to ensure the best interest and care for a child if born alive, as mandated by the MTP Act, Juvenile Justice Act, and constitutional provisions on the right to life and human digni....
The court reinforced the importance of maternal health and autonomy in pregnancy decisions, particularly regarding late-term terminations, while promoting adoption as a viable alternative.
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.
The court affirmed the right to reproductive autonomy under Article 21, allowing a minor victim of rape to terminate her pregnancy, emphasizing the importance of her consent and well-being.
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.
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.