MACT | Fraud Vitiates All Judicial Acts, Even Without Specific Review Powers: Rajasthan High Court    |     Right of Private Defense Cannot Be Weighed in Golden Scales: Madhya Pradesh High Court Acquits Appellant in Culpable Homicide Case    |     Pre-Arrest Bail Not a Right but an Exception: Himachal High Court Denied Bail In Dowry Death Case"    |     Service Law | Similarly Situated Employees Cannot Be Denied Equal Treatment: PH High Court Orders Regularization    |     Presumption of Innocence Remains Supreme Unless Clearly Overturned: PH High Court Affirming Acquittal    |     Any Physical Liaison with A Girl Of Less Than Eighteen Years Is A Strict Offense.: Patna High Court Reiterates Strict Stance On Sexual Offences Against Minors    |     Orissa High Court Rules Res Judicata Inapplicable When Multiple Appeals Arise from Same Judgment    |     Mandatory Section 80 Notice Cannot Be Bypassed Lightly:  Jammu & Kashmir High Court Returns Plaint for Non-Compliance    |     Bombay High Court Denies Permanent Lecturer Appointment for Failing to Meet UGC Eligibility Criteria at Time of Appointment    |     Deferred Cross-Examination Gave Time for Witness Tampering, Undermining Fair Trial: Allahabad High Court    |     Dowry Death | Presumption Under Section 113-B Not Applicable as No Proof of Cruelty Soon Before Death : Supreme Court    |     Land Acquisition | Jaiprakash Associates Ltd. (JAL) Liable for Compensation under Supplementary Award, Not Ultra-Tech Cement Ltd.: Supreme Court    |     Non-Mentioning of Bail Orders in Detention Reflects Clear Non-Application of Mind: J&K High Court Quashes Preventive Detention Order    |     Conviction Under Arms Act and Criminal Conspiracy Quashed Due to Non-Seizure of Key Evidence and Failure to Prove Ownership of Box: Jharkhand High Court    |    

Directs Termination of Pregnancy for Rape Victim Beyond 24 Weeks: High Court of Karnataka Upholds Reproductive Rights

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


.In a notable decision, the High Court of Karnataka, presided over by Hon'ble Mr. Justice M. Nagaprasanna, has allowed the termination of pregnancy for a rape victim who is beyond the 24-week gestational limit, emphasizing the mental health impact and socio-economic consequences for the victim.

The judgment revolves around the interpretation of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971, particularly the provisions allowing termination beyond the gestational limit of 24 weeks in specific circumstances. The court delved into the Act's provisions, focusing on whether the continuation of the pregnancy would cause grave injury to the mental health of the rape victim.

The petitioner, a 21-year-old rape victim, had initially been denied termination of pregnancy at 24 weeks gestation, citing the Act's limitations. This decision was challenged in court, highlighting the psychological burden and diagnosed adjustment disorder faced by the petitioner.

Justice Nagaprasanna critically analyzed the provisions of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971, and referenced landmark Supreme Court judgments in similar contexts. The court observed, "In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case at hand, it would be appropriate to quote the judgment of the Apex Court... wherein the Apex Court has held as follows: 'The High Court... should have... adhered to the statutory provision that when there is an allegation of rape, the pregnancy can be terminated.'"

The court stressed the importance of the victim's reproductive choice and mental health in cases of rape-induced pregnancy. It was noted that the Medical Board had focused solely on the Act's provisions without adequately considering the petitioner's fitness for termination and the psychological impact.

The High Court directed the Vani Vilas Hospital in Bengaluru to execute the medical termination of pregnancy, taking into account the petitioner's fitness for the procedure. The court also ordered DNA testing of the fetus and stated that if the child is born alive, the State should assume full responsibility for the child's welfare, as per the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015. Additionally, the court directed the State to compensate the victim in accordance with the relevant government order.

Dated: 13th February 2024

XXX VS The State of Karnataka

Similar News