UDCPR | Municipal Authorities Empowered To Grant Relaxation For Recreational Open Spaces In Redevelopment Projects: Bombay High Court Appellate Court Can Enhance Compensation Under Motor Vehicles Act Even Without Cross-Appeal By Claimants: Allahabad High Court State Instrumentalities Cannot Supplement Reasons For Withholding Public Money Via Affidavits Years Later: Calcutta High Court Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act | Victim's Status As 'Illegal Immigrant' Does Not Dilute Offence Or Shield Perpetrator: Bombay High Court Clubbing Of Criminal Trials | No Basis To Direct Consolidation If Connected Proceedings Have Already Concluded: Delhi High Court IBC ‘Clean Slate’ Principle Cannot Extinguish Pre-existing Crystallized Liability Under Labour Awards: Bombay High Court Section 406 IPC | 'Donation' Does Not Constitute 'Entrustment'; Criminal Prosecution Quashed In Absence Of Aggrieved Victim: Delhi High Court Failure To Deliver Possession Of Plot Constitutes "Continuous Wrong" Giving Rise To Recurrent Cause Of Action Under Consumer Protection Act: Delhi State Commission High Court Cannot Entertain Writ Petition Under Article 226 When Statutory Appellate Remedy Under Section 107 CGST Act Is Available: Gujarat High Court Appointment Of Temple Servants Is The Exclusive Prerogative Of The Hereditary Trustee: Kerala High Court Stay Of Suit Proceedings Under CPC Does Not Automatically Bar Adjudication Of Pending Temporary Injunction Application: Rajasthan High Court Section 136A MV Act | Supreme Court Directs States To Impound Vehicles With Unpaid E-Challans And Mandates Electronic Enforcement Compliance Section 115 CPC | Executing Court Cannot Dismiss Execution Petition On Hyper-Technical Grounds Regarding LRs Of Judgment Debtor: Himachal Pradesh High Court Succession Act | Will Not Validly Executed If Attesting Witness Admits Signing Without Witnessing Testator’s Signature: Madras High Court High Court Cannot Interfere Under Article 227 To Correct Errors Of Fact Or Act As An Appellate Court: Madhya Pradesh High Court Advocates Act 1961 | Bar Council Has No Power To Suspend Advocate Pending Disciplinary Enquiry: Allahabad High Court Identification Of Accused By Police Personnel In Pitch Darkness Without Prior Acquaintance Is Unreliable: Himachal Pradesh High Court Body Shaming Or Insulting Physical Appearance Does Not Per Se Constitute Offence Under Section 509 IPC: Karnataka High Court Drishyam 3 | Interim Injunction To Restrain Film Release Cannot Be Granted Without Establishing Clear Subsisting Legal Right: Madras High Court Town Planning Scheme | Statutory Notice To Occupiers Under Rule 12(2)(a) Punjab Municipal Rules Is Mandatory And Independent Of Notice To Owner: Punjab & Haryana 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