Supreme Court Lays Down Comprehensive Guidelines To Prevent Misuse Of POCSO Act In Matrimonial Disputes Land Reforms Act | Joint Application For Pre-Emption By Adjoining Landowners Is Maintainable: Calcutta High Court Ocular Evidence In Conflict With Medical Findings Or Withholding Of Natural Witnesses Vitiates Prosecution Case: Allahabad High Court Compassionate Appointment Claim Must Be Decided Based On Policy Prevalent At Time Of Death: Bombay High Court Section 376 IPC | Failure To Prove Initial Dishonest Intent In Marriage Promise Renders Sexual Relationship Consensual: Allahabad High Court Prolonged Incarceration And Delay In Trial Are Valid Grounds To Invoke Constitutional Right To Speedy Trial Under Article 21 In UAPA Cases: Delhi High Court Motor Vehicles Act | Insurer Liable To Pay And Recover Compensation For Gratuitous Passengers In Goods Vehicles: Gujarat High Court Proof Of Demand And Acceptance Under PC Act Must Be Evaluated Based On Preponderance Of Probabilities In Rebuttal: Kerala High Court Tenancy Claim | Mere Possession Without Lawful Foundation Or Identification Of Tenanted Land Cannot Confer Occupancy Rights: Karnataka High Court 125 CrPC | Maintenance Cannot Be Evaded By Claiming Physical Disability If Conduct Indicates Concealment Of Financial Means: Kerala High Court M.P. Municipal Corporation Act | Locus Standi Under Section 307(5) Limited To Residents Of The Municipal Area: Madhya Pradesh High Court Writ Jurisdiction | Belated Challenge To Disciplinary Action After Superannuation Amounts To Laches; Petition Dismissed: Punjab & Haryana High Court Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC | Mere Pendency Of Partition Suit Does Not Entitle Plaintiff To Injunction Restraining Reconstruction Of Residential Building: Kerala High Court

Viability and Urgency in Medical Termination Case - Refusal of Medical Termination: Supreme Court

05 September 2024 5:40 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India showcased its commitment to the principles of justice, viability, and urgency as it dealt with a case involving the medical termination of pregnancy beyond the statutory limits. The judgment, delivered by Hon'ble Chief Justice Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, along with Hon'ble Justices J. B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, set a strong precedent in the domain of medical termination and the exercise of judicial power.

The Supreme Court, in its judgment, emphasized its jurisdiction in recalling an order and the exercise of its power under Article 142 of the Constitution. The Court highlighted the need for finality in judgments and noted that challenges to decisions can only be pursued through limited routes, such as invoking the court's jurisdiction to review the judgment, preferring an appeal, or filing a curative petition.

"Article 142 permits us to relax the application of law depending upon the particular facts and circumstances of the case. This Court has the power, nay, the duty to do complete justice in a case when found necessary," stated the Court.

The case revolved around a medical termination of pregnancy sought after crossing the twenty-four-week statutory limit. The Court's refusal of the prayer for termination was based on the absence of substantial fetal abnormalities diagnosed by a Medical Board and the absence of an immediate necessity to save the petitioner's life, as required by Section 3(2B) and Section 5 of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy (MTP) Act.

The judgment noted that if the termination were allowed at this stage, it would involve a viable fetus, raising ethical and medical concerns. The Court also took into account the petitioner's preference, which did not involve stopping the fetus's heartbeat.

The Supreme Court directed that the planned delivery would be conducted by AIIMS at the appropriate time, with the Union Government agreeing to bear all medical costs for the delivery and related expenses. Additionally, the Court acknowledged the option of giving the child up for adoption, emphasizing that the decision rests entirely with the parents.

The Supreme Court's decision in this medical termination case underscores the importance of adhering to statutory limits while allowing for flexibility in unique circumstances. It serves as a precedent for future cases involving medical terminations beyond the prescribed limits and reaffirms the Court's commitment to upholding justice, viability, and the exercise of its constitutional powers.

This judgment is a significant addition to India's jurisprudence on medical termination, setting the stage for thoughtful and compassionate considerations in such cases.

Date of Decision:  16 October 2023

X vs Union of India and Anr.

Latest Legal News