Safety Shoes Used as Weapon Meets Mens Rea Requirement for Murder: Rajasthan HC on Bail Denial    |     Right to Be Considered for Promotion, Not a Right to Promotion: Supreme Court Clarifies Eligibility for Retrospective Promotion    |     Inherent Power of Courts Can Recall Admission of Insufficiently Stamped Documents: Supreme Court    |     Courts Cannot Substitute Their Opinion for Security Agencies in Threat Perception Assessments: J&K High Court Directs Reassessment of Political Leader's Threat Perception    |     Service Law | Violation of Natural Justice: Discharge Without Notice or Reason: Gauhati High Court Orders Reinstatement and Regularization of Circle Organizers    |     Jharkhand High Court Quashes Family Court Order, Reaffirms Jurisdiction Based on Minor’s Ordinary Residence in Delhi    |     Ex-Serviceman Status Ceases After First Employment in Government Job: Calcutta High Court Upholds SBI’s Cancellation of Ex-Serviceman's Appointment Over False Declaration of Employment    |     Maxim Res Ipsa Loquitur Applies When State Instrumentalities Are Directly Responsible: Delhi High Court Orders MCD to Pay ₹10 Lakhs Compensation for Death    |     Wilful Avoidance of Service Must Be Established Before Passing Ex Parte Order Under Section 126(2) CrPC: Patna High Court Sets Aside Ex Parte Maintenance Order    |     MP High Court Imposes Rs. 10,000 Costs for Prolonging Litigation, Upholds Eviction of Petitioners from Father's Property    |     When Detention Unnecessary Despite Serious Allegations of Fraud Bail Should be Granted: Kerala HC    |     Magistrate's Direction for Police Inquiry Under Section 202 CrPC Is Valid; Petitioner Must Await Investigation Outcome: Bombay High Court Dismisses Advocate's Petition as Premature    |     Relocation Alone Cannot Justify Transfer: Supreme Court Rejects Plea to Move Case from Nellore to Delhi, Orders Fresh Probe    |     Punjab & Haryana HC Double Bench Upholds Protection for Married Partners in Live-In Relationships, Denies Same for Minors    |     Tribunal’s Compensation Exceeding Claimed Amount Found Just and Fair Under Motor Vehicles Act: No Deduction Errors Warrant Reduction: Gujrat High Court    |     Smell of Alcohol in Post-Mortem Insufficient to Establish Intoxication: Rajasthan High Court Upholds Liability of Insurance Company in Motor Accident Case    |     No Grounds for Transfer: Free Bus Fare for Women in Telangana Reduces Travel Burden: Telangana High Court Rejects Wife's Petition to Transfer Divorce Case    |     Mechanical Referrals Invalid: "Deputy Registrar Must Apply Judicial Mind: Allahabad HC Quashes Deputy Registrar's Order in Arya Pratinidhi Sabha Election Dispute    |    

Foetus is not suffering from lethal anomaly – Termination of Pregnancy Refused – Kerala High Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


 In a significant ruling , the High Court of Kerala, presided over by the Honorable Mr. Justice Devan Ramachandran, reaffirmed the crucial balance between medical ethics and legal mandates in cases of pregnancy termination. The court dismissed a writ petition seeking the termination of a 30-week pregnancy due to suspected foetal abnormalities.

“This Court is left without any other option, but to close this writ petition without any further orders,” Justice Ramachandran declared, emphasizing the court’s adherence to the medical opinion that the foetus, suspected of having “Bilateral Enlarged Echogenic Kidneys with micro cysts,” does not suffer from a lethal anomaly.

The petitioners, Aswathy Surendran and Ajith Gopi, represented by advocates Cibi Thomas, C.J. Solomon, and E.G. Ambily, approached the court with apprehensions based on medical reports from Sabine Hospital and Research Centre and Amrita Institute of Medical Sciences and Research Centre. They feared grave abnormalities for their unborn child, urging for a termination under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971.

The court initially directed for a medical evaluation by the District Medical Board, Government Medical College, Kochi, followed by an expert assessment at SAT Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram. The conclusive medical opinion underscored that the anomaly was not life-threatening and recommended the continuation of the pregnancy.

In his judgment, Justice Ramachandran noted, “It is evident and obvious from the afore two reports that it is the specific opinion of the experts and doctors that the foetus is not suffering from lethal anomaly.” He further highlighted the advanced gestational stage of the foetus, which is already fully formed and preparing for life outside the womb.

Date of Decision: 18th December 2023

XXX VS The State of Kerala

 

Similar News