Registrar Has No Power To Cancel Registered Sale Deeds: Madras High Court Reaffirms Civil Court’s Exclusive Jurisdiction MP High Court Refuses to Quash FIR Against Principal of Sacred Heart Convent High School in Forced Conversion Case Employees Of Registered Societies Cannot Claim Article 311 Protection: Delhi High Court Clarifies Limits Of Constitutional Safeguards In Private Employment Maintenance Cannot Be Doubled Without Cogent Reasons, Wife's Education And Earning Capacity Relevant Factors: Gujarat High Court A Foreign Award Must First Be "Recognised" Before It Becomes A Decree: Bombay High Court A Registered Will Does Not Become Genuine Merely Because It Is Registered: Andhra Pradesh High Court Rejects Suspicious Testament Compensation Under Railways Act Requires Proof of Bona Fide Passenger – Mere GRP Entry and Medical Records Cannot Establish ‘Untoward Incident’: Delhi High Court Tenancy Rights Cannot Be Bequeathed By Will: Himachal Pradesh High Court Declares Mutation Based On Tenant’s Will Void Preventive Detention Cannot Be Based On Mere Apprehension of Bail: Delhi High Court Quashes PITNDPS Detention Order Probate Court Alone Has Exclusive Jurisdiction To Decide Validity Of Will – Probate Petition Cannot Be Rejected Merely Because A Civil Suit Is Pending: Allahabad High Court PwD Candidates Cannot Be Denied Appointment After Selection; Authorities Must Accommodate Them In Suitable Posts: Supreme Court Directs SSC And CAG To Appoint Candidates With Disabilities When Registered Partition Deed Exists, Plea Of Prior Oral Partition Cannot Override It:  Madras High Court Dismisses Second Appeal Municipal Bodies Cannot Demand Character Verification Of Residents: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Surveillance Condition In Building Sanction State Cannot Exploit Contractual Workers For Perennial Work: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Pay Parity To PUNBUS Drivers And Conductors Police Inputs Cannot Create New Building Laws: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Security-Based Conditions Near Nabanna 'Raising A Child As Daughter Does Not Make Her An Adopted Child': Punjab & Haryana High Court Once Leave Under Section 80(2) CPC Is Granted, Prior Notice to Government Is Not Mandatory: Orissa High Court Restores Trial Court Decree State Cannot Use Article 226 To Evade Compliance With Court Orders: Gauhati High Court Dismisses Union’s Petition With Costs ED Officers Accused Of Assault By ₹23-Crore Scam Accused – FIR Survives But Probe Shifted To CBI: Jharkhand High Court High Courts Should Not Interfere In Academic Integrity Proceedings At Preliminary Stage: Kerala High Court Power Of Attorney Holder With Personal Knowledge Can Depose In Cheque Bounce Cases: Kerala High Court Sets Aside Acquittal Agreement Cannot Dissolve Hindu Marriage, But Can Prove Mutual Separation”: J&K & Ladakh High Court Denies Maintenance

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