IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Mohammad Rafiq, CJ, and Vijay Kumar Shukla, J.
XYZ v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Others
Writ Petition No .12155 of 2021(Jabalpur); Decided on14.7.2021
(1) Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 -- S. 3 (as amended on 25.3.2021) -- Constitution of India - Arts. 14 and 21 -- rape victim -- severe mental retardation with behavioural problems -- mental age approximately 6 years -- unable to take care of herself -- pregnancy of 25 week 5 days,variable by two weeks -- would be hazardous to allow to continue with pregnancy -- may even be more dangerous to unborn child -- Court cannot lose sight of psychological trauma victim would have to undergo -- not permitting medical termination of unwanted pregnancy would be violative of her bodily integrity -- would not only aggravate mental trauma but would also have devastating effect on overall health including psychological and mental aspects -- violative of her personal liberty -- her personal integrity has to be respected -- medical termination of pregnancy allowed. (2017) SCC Online SC 1902, (2008) 12 SCC 57, (2009) 9 SCC 1, (2017) 3 SCC 462 and (2018) 11 SCC 572 followed. W.P. (C) No. 115 of 2021 decided on 11.1.2021, W.P. No. 20961 of 2017 decided on 6.12.2017, S.B. Criminal W.P. No. 148 of 2020 decided on 26.2.2020, S.B. Civil W.P. No. 1271 of 2019 decided on 29.1.2019, W.P. (C) No. 2294 of 2021 decided on 25.6.2021, 2018 (2) MhLJ 46 and 2019 SCC Online Bom. 560 relied on. (1987) 1 SCC 424, W.P. (C) No. 928 of 2007 decided on 9.10.2007, (2017) 3 SCC 458, (2018) 13 SCC 339, (2018) 14 SCC 75 and (2018) SCC Online Bom. 11 referred to. [Para 22]
(2) Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 -- S. 3 (2), Explanation 2 -- "grave injury to mental health" -- raises presumption about anguish caused by pregnancy resulting from rape -- Court would also be entitled to reasonably visualise environment in which victim will have to live in immediate foreseeable future, to decide question of her mental health. [Para 23]
¼1½ xHkZ dk fpfdRlh; lekiu vf/kfu;e] 1971 & /kkjk 3 ¼25-3-2021 dks ;Fkk la'kksf/kr½ & Hkkjr dk lafo/kku & vuqPNsn 14 rFkk 21 & cykRlax ihfM+rk & nk:.k ekufld eanrk ds lkFk O;ogkj lac/kh leL;k,a & ekufld vk;q yxHkx 6 o"kZ & Lo;a dh ns[kHkky djus esa vleFkZ & 25 lIrkg 5 fnu dk xHkZ] ftlesa nks lIrkg dk varj gks ldrk gS & xHkZ cus jgus nsuk ladViw.kZ gksxk & vtUes f'k'kq ds fy, vkSj Hkh vf/kd [krjukd gks ldrk gS & ihfM+rk dks tks euksoSKkfud vk?kkr Hkksxuk iM+sxk] U;k;ky; mls n`f"V ls vks>y ugha dj ldrk & vokaNuh; xHkZ dk fpfdRlh; lekiu vuqKkr ugha djus ls mldh nSfgd v[kaMrk dk vfrØe.k gksxk & ekufld vk?kkr gh ugha c<+sxk vfirq lokZxh.k LokLF; ij] ftlesa euksoSKkfud vkSj ekufld igyw lfEefyr gSa] fouk'kdkjh ÁHkko Hkh iM+sxk & mldh nSfgd Lora=rk dk vfrØe.k gksxk & mldh nSfgd v[kaMrk dk leknj fd;k gh tkuk gksxk & xHkZ dk fpfdRlh; lekiu vuqKkrA ¼2017½ ,l lh lh vkWuykbu ,l lh 1902] ¼2008½ 12 ,l lh lh 57] ¼2009½ 9 ,l lh lh 1] ¼2017½ 3 ,l lh lh 462 rFkk ¼2018½ 12 ,l lh lh 572 vuqlfjrA fjV ;kfpdk ¼flfoy½ Øekad 115 lu~ 2021 fu.khZr fnukad 11-1-2021 fjV ;kfpdk Øekad 20961 lu~ 2017 fu.khZr fnukad 6-12-2017] ,lŒchŒ fØfeuy fjV ;kfpdk Øekad 148 lu~ 2020 fu.khZr fnukad 26-2-2020] ,lŒchŒ flfoy fjV ;kfpdk Øekad 1271 lu~ 2019 fu.khZr fnukad 29-1-2019] fjV ;kfpdk ¼flfoy½ Øekad 2294 lu~ 2021 fu.khZr fnukad 25-6-2021] 2018 ¼2½ ,e,p ,y ts 46 rFkk 2019 ,l lh lh vkWuykbu cacbZ 560 voyafcrA ¼1987½ 1 ,l lh lh 424] fjV ;kfpdk ¼flfoy½ Øekad 928 lu~ 2007 fu.khZr fnukad 9-10-2007] ¼2017½ 3 ,l lh lh 458] ¼2018½ 13 ,l lh lh 339] ¼2018½ 14 ,l lh lh 75 rFkk ¼2018½ ,l lh lh vkWuykbu cacbZ 11 fufnZ"VA ¼iSjk 22½
¼2½ xHkZ dk fpfdRlh; lekiu vf/kfu;e] 1971 & /kkjk 3¼2½] Li"Vhdj.k 2 & ^^ekufld LokLF; dks xaHkhj {kfr** & cykRlax Qfyr xHkZ ls dkfjr euLrki dh m/kkj.kk mn~Hkwr gksrh gS & ihfM+rk ds ekufld LokLF; dk Á'u fofuf'pr djus ds fy, U;k;ky; dks ml okrkoj.k dh ;qfDr;qDr ifjdYiuk djus dk gd Hkh gksxk ftlesa ihfM+rk dks vklUu iwokZuqes; Hkfo"; esa jguk gksxkA ¼iSjk 23½
ORDER
Rafiq, C.J. -- 1. This writ petition has been filed by petitioner- XYZ praying for a direction to the respondents to allow her daughter (hereinafter referred to as “Victim-A”) to undergo medical termination of pregnancy at the State expense. The petitioner has also challenged the constitutional validity of section 3(2)(b) of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 (for short “the MTP Act”) to the extent it stipulates a ceiling of 24 weeks for medical termination of pregnancy with the prayer the same be declared as ultra vires Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner has also challenged the order dated 6.7.2021 passed by the Third Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshangabad in MJC-R No.207/2021 rejecting application of the petitioner for permission to terminate pregnancy of Victim-A.
2. The petitioner is resident of Village Baagratwa, Tehsil Babai, District Hoshangabad of State of Madhya Pradesh. She belongs to Scheduled Tribe community. She is wholly illiterate, living below poverty line. She does not have any moveable or immoveable property. According to the petitioner, she and her husband work as a labourer. Her daughter Victim-A is aged about 23 years and she is mentally retarded. The petitioner and her husband left their village for Ujjain for earning livelihood by doing labour work. When they returned back after some time, the petitioner found that her daughter Victim-A was behaving in a peculiar manner. Their daughter Victim-A informed them in sign language about certain stomach pain. On making further enquiry, she learnt that one of her neighbours had committed rape upon her. She immediately took her to the doctor, who found that she was pregnant. The petitioner lodged a first information report with the Police Station Babai. District Hoshangabad, which has been registered for offence under section 376(2)(1) of the IPC as Crime No.301/2021. The accused was arrested on 20.6.2021. The police got Victim-A medically examined and also obtained the medical report about her mental health. Victim-A was thereafter sent for further medical examination on 22.6.2021, upon which it was confirmed that she was carrying pregnancy of 22 weeks. The petitioner immediately filed an application under section 3 of the MTP Act on 30.6.2021 before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Hoshangabad, seeking permission for termination of her pregnancy, who rejected the same on 2.7.2021. Since 3rd and 4th July, 2021, being Saturday and Sunday, were holidays, the petitioner filed application under section 3 of the MTP Act with the same prayer before the Third Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshangabad on 5.7.2021, which was registered as MJC-R No.207/2021. The same was however rejected on the very next working day i.e. 6.7.2021 under the ignorance about the latest law whereby maximum length of pregnancy under section 3(2)(b) of the Act, which was earlier 20 weeks, was raised to 24 weeks by amendment to that effect by the Act 8 of 2021 published in the Gazette of Government of India on 25.3.2021.
3. When the matter was listed before this Court on 12.7.2021, the Court directed the Medical Superintendent, Hamidia Hospital, Bhopal to constitute a Multi Disciplinary Medical Board consisting of registered medical practitioner each from the Department of Gynaecology, Psychiatry, Paediatrics and Radiology or any other specialist, in his discretion, as per the MTP Act for having the radiological examination of the fetus to determine the status of its health and also give the bona fide opinion as to whether the medical termination of the pregnancy would be necessary to save the life of the victim. A report of the Medical Board has been produced today, which reads thus :-
“The findings of the Medical Board are as follows :-
1. Survivor age 24 y/f (as per AADHAR card). As per the history narrated by mother, she has history of delayed milestone, poor understanding, poor self care, inability to speak, drooling of saliva since childhood.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the MTP Act allows medical termination of pregnancy beyond the statutory cap of 24 weeks if continuing the pregnancy would cause grave injury ....
The court emphasized the need to interpret the provisions of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 liberally, considering the pregnant woman's actual or reasonable foreseeable environment an....
The right to terminate a pregnancy under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act is upheld as fundamental to the autonomy and dignity of a minor rape victim, despite gestational limits.
The court emphasized the importance of considering the impact of domestic violence on a pregnant woman's mental health and the need for a liberal and purposive interpretation of the Medical Terminati....
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....
Termination of pregnancy beyond 24 weeks is permissible under specific conditions for minors when facing severe health risks, as affirmed by medical evaluation and consent of guardians.
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.
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.