Government Can Resume Leased Land For Public Purpose; 'Substantial Compliance' Of 60-Day Notice Sufficient: Kerala High Court Revenue Can't Cite Pending Litigation to Justify One Year of Adjudication Inaction: Karnataka High Court Limitation | 1,142 Days of Silence: Orissa High Court Rejects Litigant's Claim That His Lawyer Never Called SC/ST Act's Bar on Anticipatory Bail Does Not Apply When Complaint Fails to Make Out Prima Facie Case: Karnataka High Court Oral Agreement for Sale Cannot Be Dismissed for Want of Stamp or Registration: Calcutta High Court Upholds Injunction Finance Company's Own Legal Manager Cannot Appoint Arbitrator — Award Passed by Such Arbitrator Is Non-Est and Inexecutable: Andhra Pradesh High Court District Court Cannot Remand Charity Commissioner's Order: Bombay High Court Division Bench Settles Conflicting Views Framing "Points For Determination" Not Always Mandatory For First Appellate Courts: Allahabad High Court Delhi HC Finds Rape Conviction Cannot Stand On Testimony Where Victim Showed 'Unnatural Concern' For Her Alleged Attacker Limitation in Partition Suit Cannot Be Decided Without Evidence: Karnataka High Court Cheque Dishonour Accused Can Probabilise Defence Without Entering Witness Box — Through Cross-Examination And Marked Documents Alone: Madras High Court Contributory Negligence | No Driving Licence and Three on a Motorcycle Cannot Mean the Victim Caused the Accident: Rajasthan High Court LL.B Degree Cannot Be Ground to Deny Maintenance to Divorced Wife: Gujarat High Court Dried Leaves and Branches Are Not 'Ganja': Delhi High Court Grants Bail Under NDPS Act Family Court Judge Secretly Compared Handwriting Without Telling Wife, Then Punished Her Hesitation: Delhi High Court Quashes Divorce Decree Co-Owner Can Sell Undivided Share in Joint Property Without Consent of Other Co-owners — Sale Deed Valid to Extent of Transferor's Share: Orissa High Court Mandatory Safeguards of Section 42 NDPS Cannot Be Bypassed — Even When 1329 Kg of Hashish Is Seized: Gujarat High Court Affirms Acquittal GST Officer Froze Business Accounts Without Any Legal Basis, Ignored Taxpayer for Three Months: Bombay High Court Imposes Personal Costs Weapon Recovered, But No Forensic Report, No Independent Witness — Allahabad High Court Acquits Murder Accused

Termination of 28-Week Pregnancy Denied: Delhi HC Upholds MTP Act’s Stringent Requirements

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant judgment, the Delhi High Court, presided over by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Subramonium Prasad, dismissed a writ petition seeking the termination of a 28-week pregnancy, citing strict adherence to the provisions of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy (MTP) Act.

The petitioner, a 20-year-old unmarried student, approached the court under W.P.(C) 1444/2024 & CM APPL. 5984/2024, seeking directions for the medical termination of her ongoing pregnancy, which had reached 28 weeks. The plea was made under the provisions of the MTP Act and its Rules.

The petitioner, unaware of her pregnancy due to irregular menstrual cycles, discovered her condition at 27 weeks.

She cited grave risks to her physical and mental health, social stigma, and career jeopardy as grounds for termination.

The court examined the provisions of the MTP Act, which permits termination up to 20 weeks by one medical practitioner and up to 24 weeks by two practitioners in certain cases.

Beyond 24 weeks, termination is permissible only to save the life of the pregnant woman or in cases of substantial foetal abnormalities.

Justice Subramonium Prasad noted, “Since the foetus is viable and normal, and there is no danger to the Petitioner to carry on with the pregnancy, foeticide would neither be ethical nor legally permissible.” This observation highlighted the ethical and legal complexities involved in late-term pregnancy terminations.

The court observed that the petitioner’s case did not fall under the guidelines permitting termination beyond 24 weeks. The judgment clarified that the petitioner’s circumstances did not align with the Act’s provisions for termination.

Justice Prasad stated, “The prayer sought for by the Petitioner for a direction to the AIIMS for premature termination of pregnancy/delivery of the child cannot be acceded to by this Court since the case of the Petitioner does not fall within the four corners of the MTP Act and the Rules framed thereunder.”

While dismissing the petition, the court suggested that the petitioner could approach AIIMS for delivery and future course of action. The court also granted liberty to the petitioner to consider adoption and directed the Union of India to ensure a smooth adoption process if chosen.

Date of Decision: 05 February 2024

S VS THE UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Latest Legal News