Victim Has Locus To Request Court To Summon Witnesses Under Section 311 CrPC In State Prosecution: Allahabad High Court Order 2 Rule 2 CPC Cannot Be Ground to Reject a Plaint: Supreme Court Draws Crucial Distinction Between Bar to Sue and Bar by Law No Right to Lawyer Before Advisory Board in Preventive Detention — Unless Government Appears Through Legal Practitioner: Supreme Court Wife's Dowry Statement Cannot Be Used to Prosecute Her for 'Giving' Dowry: Supreme Court Upholds Section 7(3) Shield Husband's Loan Repayments Cannot Reduce Wife's Maintenance: Supreme Court Raises Amount to ₹25,000 From ₹15,000 Prisoners Don't Surrender Their Rights at the Prison Gate: Supreme Court Issues Binding SOP to End Delays in Legal Aid Appeals A Judgment Must Be a Self-Contained Document Even When Defendant Never Appears: Supreme Court on Ex Parte Decrees Court Cannot Dismiss Ex Parte Suit on Unpleaded, Unframed Issue: Supreme Court Sets Aside Specific Performance Decree Denied on Title Erroneous High Court Observations Cannot Be Used to Stake Property Claims: Supreme Court Steps In to Prevent Misuse of Judicial Observations No Criminal Proceedings Would Have Been Initiated Had Financial Settlement Succeeded: Supreme Court Grants Anticipatory Bail In Rape Case Directors Cannot Escape Pollution Law Prosecution by Claiming Ignorance: Allahabad High Court Refuses to Quash Summons Against Company Directors Order 7 Rule 11 CPC | Court Cannot Peek Into Defence While Rejecting Plaint: Delhi High Court Death 3½ Months After Accident Doesn't Break Causal Link If Doctors Testify Injuries Could Cause Death: Andhra Pradesh High Court LLB Intern Posed as Supreme Court Advocate, Used Fake Bar Council Card and Police Station Seals to Defraud Victims of Rs. 80 Lakhs: Gujarat High Court Rejects Anticipatory Bail Husband Who Travels to Wife's City on Leave, Cohabits With Her, Then Claims She 'Never Lived With Him' Cannot Prove Cruelty: Jharkhand High Court Liquor Licence Is a State Privilege, Not a Citizen's Right — No Vested Right of Renewal Survives a Change in Rules: Karnataka High Court Sets Aside Stay on E-Auction Policy Court Holiday Cannot Save Prosecution From Default Bail: MP High Court No Search At Your Premises, No Incriminating Document, No Case: Rajasthan HC Quashes Rs. 18 Crore Tax Assessment Under Section 153C Limitation Act | Litigant Cannot Be Punished For Court's Own Docket Load: J&K High Court

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