MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

Right to Make Reproductive Choices Integral to Personal Liberty – Delhi Court Affirms Reproductive Rights

05 December 2024 2:42 PM

By: sayum


Delhi High Court approves termination at 30 weeks, emphasizing the need for thorough medical evaluation and reproductive rights - In a significant ruling, the Delhi High Court has allowed the medical termination of a pregnancy at 30 weeks for a petitioner whose fetus was diagnosed with severe neurological abnormalities. The judgment, delivered by Justice Sanjeev Narula, underscores the importance of comprehensive medical evaluations and the reproductive rights of women. The court accepted the findings of the AIIMS Medical Board, which diagnosed the fetus with Joubert Syndrome, a condition associated with poor neurodevelopmental outcomes.

The petitioner, Mrs. R, a 31-year-old married woman with a nine-year-old son who suffers from a mental disability, sought medical termination of her ongoing pregnancy under Sections 3(2B) and 3(3) of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971. Following a series of medical examinations, including ultrasounds and a fetal MRI, doctors identified significant abnormalities indicative of Dandy Walker Continuum and later Joubert Syndrome. Initially, the Medical Board at Lok Nayak Hospital denied her request for termination due to inconclusive findings. However, a subsequent examination by a Medical Board at AIIMS provided a definitive diagnosis supporting the termination.

The court highlighted the necessity of thorough and up-to-date medical evaluations in cases involving severe fetal abnormalities. Justice Narula noted, "The Medical Board at Lok Nayak Hospital failed to provide a conclusive diagnosis due to reliance on outdated medical reports and inadequate testing. In contrast, the AIIMS Medical Board conducted comprehensive and current evaluations, arriving at a clear diagnosis of Joubert Syndrome."

The judgment reiterated the importance of considering the actual and reasonably foreseeable environment of the petitioner, in line with Section 3(3) of the MTP Act. Justice Narula emphasized, "The right to make reproductive choices is integral to the right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The decision to permit termination in this case reflects the necessity to protect the petitioner's mental health and the potential quality of life of the unborn child."

The court extensively discussed the legislative framework of the MTP Act, which allows termination of pregnancy beyond 24 weeks if substantial fetal abnormalities are diagnosed. Justice Narula stated, "The diagnosis of Joubert Syndrome, a multisystem disorder with poor neurodevelopmental outcomes, justifies the termination of the pregnancy despite its advanced gestational age. The findings by the AIIMS Medical Board were conclusive and aligned with established medical guidelines."

Justice Narula remarked, "The comprehensive and timely evaluation conducted by the AIIMS Medical Board has been invaluable in assisting the court in making an informed decision. Their findings, based on up-to-date medical evidence, provide a strong basis for permitting the termination."

The Delhi High Court's ruling emphasizes the critical role of medical expertise and thorough evaluations in cases involving late-term pregnancy terminations. By upholding the reproductive rights of women and considering the substantial risk of severe fetal abnormalities, the judgment sets a precedent for similar cases. This decision not only ensures the well-being of the petitioner but also underscores the judiciary's commitment to protecting women's health and reproductive choices.

Date of Decision: July 5, 2024

Latest Legal News