SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(All) 1182

ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
SHEKHAR B. SARAF, MANJIVE SHUKLA, JJ.
X (Minor Victim) - Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and Others - Respondents
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 21956 of 2024
Decided On : 24-07-2024

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Desh Ratan Chaudhary and Siddharth Chaudhary.
For the Respondents: Birendra Prasad Shukla C.S.C.

IMPORTANT POINT
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.

Headnote:

Medical Termination - Pregnancy - MTP Act Sections 3, 4, 5 - The court analyzed the provisions of the MTP Act, emphasizing the conditions for termination based on gestational age, health risks, and the autonomy of the pregnant woman, ultimately prioritizing the mother's health and the viability of the fetus.

Fact of the Case:

A 15-year-old petitioner sought a writ of mandamus for medical termination of her 29-week pregnancy following sexual assault. The court examined medical reports and the implications of continuing the pregnancy versus termination.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that while the pregnancy could impact the petitioner's health, termination at this late stage posed significant risks. The petitioner and her family opted for delivery and adoption instead of termination.

Issues: Whether to allow the termination of a pregnancy at 32 weeks gestation, considering the health risks to the petitioner and the viability of the fetus.

Ratio Decidendi: The court upheld the principle that the health of the mother is paramount, and the decision to terminate a pregnancy must consider the gestational age and associated risks, ultimately favoring delivery and adoption.

Result: The court denied the request for termination and directed the delivery of the child, ensuring the adoption process is facilitated.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Sri Desh Ratan Chaudhary and Sri Siddharth Chaudhary, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Sri Birendra Prasad Shukla, the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the State.

2. This is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India wherein the petitioner has prayed for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus commanding the Chief Medical Officer concerned (hereinafter referred to as respondent No. 3) to medically terminate the pregnancy of the petitioner.

FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE

3. Factual matrix leading to the instant petition is delineated below:

    (a) Petitioner, aged 15 years, was living in the house of her maternal uncle.

(b) On June 25, 2024, a First Information Report was lodged at Police Station concerned under Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, by the petitioner's maternal uncle alleging that the petitioner was enticed away by a man.

(c) On June 28, 2024, during the course of the investigation, the petitioner was recovered, and it was found that the petitioner was subjected to sexual intercourse. Subsequently, the case was converted under Sections 363 and 376 of the IPC and Section 3/4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as the POCSO Act).

(d) It was revealed by the ultrasonography report that the petitioner was having a pregnancy of about 29 weeks at the time of recovery.

4. From an examination of the date of the F.I.R. and the allegation of rape in the month of June, we were uncertain as to whether the case made out by the petitioner of her rape in the month of June is valid as she was 29 weeks pregnant in the month of June itself. However, it is to be noted that if the petitioner is actually only 15 years old, the same would constitute an offence of statutory rape.

5. Accordingly, keeping in mind the urgency of the matter and taking a humanitarian view as the petitioner is supposedly 15 years old (as per her high school mark sheet), respondent No. 3 was directed to immediately constitute a Five-member Team headed by the Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Department of Anaesthesia and Department of Radio Diagnosis to examine the petitioner and submit a report before this Court in a sealed cover within a period of 3 days. The team was also directed to carry out an age verification test on the petitioner and inform the Court of the same.

6. On July 18, 2024, the matter was placed before the coordinate Division Bench of this Court, who found the report dated July 16, 2024, provided by the Five-Member Team to be unclear with regard to the Medical Termination of Pregnancy and thereby directed respondent No. 3 to submit a fresh report before this Court on July 22, 2024, answering whether it is medically feasible and advisable to terminate the pregnancy suffered by the petitioner. The relevant portion of the report dated July 16, 2024, is reproduced herein:

period of viability

7. On July 22, 2024, the fresh report dated July 20, 2024, was submitted by respondent No. 3. The relevant portion of the report is produced herein:

8. Upon perusal of the same, we found it to be inconclusive and passed a further order commanding the Chief Medical Officer, Prayagraj (hereinafter referred to as the C.M.O., Prayagraj) to constitute a Medical Board of five well-reputed doctors including the Doctors from the departments, namely, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Department of Neonatology and Department of Psychiatry to examine the petitioner physically as well as mentally. The Medical Board was also directed to counsel the petitioner and her parents and advise them of the possibilities of adoption and the secrecy/privacy thereof that would be maintained in the event the petitioner agrees to carry the child to full term. Furthermore, they were directed to answer the following questions, which were formulated thus:

    ''a. Whethe

                Click Here to Read the rest of this document
                1
                2
                3
                4
                5
                6
                7
                8
                9
                10
                11
                SupremeToday Portrait Ad
                supreme today icon
                logo-black

                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

                qr

                Scan Me!

                India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

                For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

                whatsapp-icon Back to top