Mere Reproduction Of Evidence Can Never Be Equated With Appreciation: Karnataka High Court Quashes Penalty Against Govt Employee Accused Cannot Repeatedly Send Cheque To FSL Till Favourable Report Is Obtained: Kerala High Court In NI Act Case Succession Certificate Cannot Be Issued For Gold Jewels Pledged With Bank, Applies Only To Debts And Securities: Madras High Court Order 11 Rule 14 CPC | Court Cannot Direct Production Of Documents Without Ascertaining They Are In Party's Possession: Calcutta High Court Undertrial Prisoners Don't Suffer 'Civil Death', Retain Fundamental Right To Alienate Property From Jail: Rajasthan High Court Direction For Reasonable Annual Enhancement Of Maintenance Under Section 125 CrPC Merely Preserves Its Real Value Against Inflation: Delhi High Court Testimony Of Sole Interested Witness Must Be Of 'Sterling Quality' To Base Conviction: Patna High Court Acquits Murder Convict Failure To Communicate Written Grounds Of Arrest Renders Arrest Constitutionally Infirm, Accused Entitled To Bail: Punjab & Haryana High Court Section 482 CrPC Petition Not Maintainable Against Order Framing Charge Under SC/ST Act, Appeal Lies Under Section 14A: Tripura High Court Disputed Questions Of Fact Regarding Title And Forged Documents Cannot Be Decided Under Article 226: Telangana High Court Matter To Be Enquired By Bar Council: Madhya Pradesh High Court Dismisses Lawyer's PILs With Costs For Suppressing Attorney-Client Relationship BDA Cannot Arbitrarily Reverse Resolutions Passed To Comply With Judicial Directives: Karnataka High Court Section 52A NDPS Act: Mere Non-Compliance Does Not Automatically Vitiate Trial Unless Evidence Is Doubtful: Punjab & Haryana High Court Seniority Must Be Determined From Date Of Substantive Appointment, Not Ad-Hoc Service: Allahabad High Court Uncorroborated Testimony Of Drug Inspector Cannot Form Sole Basis For Conviction Under Drugs Act: Andhra Pradesh High Court Suppression Of Adverse Facts Strikes At Root Of Equitable Jurisdiction: Bombay High Court Denies Injunction In HUF Property Dispute

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

Latest Legal News