Order XLI Rule 23A CPC | Re-Trial Necessary When Crucial Parties Impleaded In Appeal: Telangana High Court Cannot Freeze Entire Bank Account For Small Disputed Sums: Rajasthan High Court Issues Comprehensive Guidelines Against Indiscriminate Account Freezes In Cyber Crime Probes 187(3) BNSS | No Extension Of Investigation Time Without Notice To Accused: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Default Bail In NDPS Case Road Widening Under Master Plan Cannot Be Stalled For Formal Land Acquisition, Section 305 Permits Direct Removal Of Encroachments: Madhya Pradesh High Court P&H High Court Quashes Preventive Detention Over 45-Day Delay In Informing Detenu Of Right To Represent 'Sole Allegation Of Torture Cannot Stand Alone': Andhra Pradesh High Court Acquits Husband Under Section 498A IPC After Dowry Demand Disproved Seeking Corroboration To Victim's Testimony Amounts To Adding Insult To Injury: Bombay High Court Upholds Rape Conviction Offences Of Cheating & Criminal Breach Of Trust Cannot Coexist On Same Facts: Calcutta High Court Quashes FIR Over Commercial Contract Dispute "Accident Alone Is Not Proof": Delhi High Court Acquits Bus Driver In 2003 Road Fatality Case, Rules Mere Speeding Or Collision Insufficient For Section 304A IPC Mandate Of Regulations Must Be Read Into Public Notices: Kerala High Court Reverses Order Directing NMC To Reopen Portal For Medical College's PG Seat Hike Unproven 1946 Oral Sale And Subsequent School Gift Cannot Convey Valid Title Over Tribal Land: Orissa High Court Orders Compensation After 80 Years ED Can Probe Money Laundering In J&K Corruption Cases: J&K High Court Rules S. 5(1)(d) J&K PC Act Corresponds To Amended S. 7 Of Central PC Act Not Mere Lip Service: Supreme Court Quashes GST Notice Under Section 74 Lacking Foundational Facts Of Fraud Or Suppression Selling Manufactured Goods At Factory Premises Doesn't Turn 'Industrial' Land Into 'Commercial' For Stamp Duty: Supreme Court Supreme Court Orders All States To Form Dedicated SITs To Probe Fake Motor Accident Claims, Warns Insurance Top Brass Against Selective Referrals Port Trusts Not Immune From Customs Duty On Pilfered Goods: Supreme Court Upholds Notification Declaring Mumbai Port Trust As Custodian Under Section 45

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