Bail | Right to Speedy Trial is a Fundamental Right Under Article 21: PH High Court    |     Postal Department’s Power to Enhance Penalties Time-Barred, Rules Allahabad High Court    |     Tenants Cannot Cross-Examine Landlords Unless Relationship is Disputed: Madras High Court    |     NDPS | Conscious Possession Extends to Vehicle Drivers: Telangana High Court Upholds 10-Year Sentence in Ganja Trafficking Case    |     Aid Reduction Of Without Due Process Unlawful: Rajasthan High Court Restores Full Grants for Educational Institutions    |     Assessment of Notional Income in Absence of Proof Cannot Be 'Mathematically Precise,' Says Patna High Court    |     NCLT's Resolution Plan Overrides State Tax Claims: Andhra Pradesh High Court Quashes Demands Against Patanjali Foods    |     An Agreement is Not Voidable if the Party Could Discover the Truth with Ordinary Diligence: Calcutta High Court Quashes Termination of LPG Distributorship License    |     Independent Witnesses Contradict Prosecution's Story: Chhattisgarh High Court Acquit Accused in Arson Case    |     Merely Being a Joint Account Holder Does Not Attract Liability Under Section 138 of NI Act:  Gujarat High Court    |     Higher Court Cannot Reappreciate Evidence Unless Perversity is Found: Himachal Pradesh High Court Refused to Enhance Maintenance    |     Perpetual Lease Allows Division of Property: Delhi High Court Affirms Partition and Validity of Purdah Wall    |     "Party Autonomy is the Backbone of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Upholds Sole Arbitrator Appointment Despite Party’s Attempts to Frustrate Arbitration Proceedings    |     Videography in Temple Premises Limited to Religious Functions: Kerala High Court Orders to Restrict Non-Religious Activities on Temple Premises    |     Past Service Must Be Counted for Pension Benefits: Jharkhand High Court Affirms Pension Rights for Daily Wage Employees    |     'Beyond Reasonable Doubt’ Does Not Mean Beyond All Doubt: Madras High Court Upholds Life Imprisonment for Man Convicted of Murdering Mother-in-Law    |    

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.

Similar News