[ad_1]
Express News Service
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Monday junked a plea by a married woman seeking termination of her 26-week pregnancy. Putting an end to a conundrum over deciding between “the rights of the unborn child” and the “choice of the mother”,
a bench led by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud reached a conclusion on the basis of a medical board report from All-India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS). While asking the hospital to extend all medical help and assistance to the woman to complete with her pregnancy, the bench noted the pregnancy is not an immediate danger to the life of the woman and the foetus is healthy.
“Pregnancy is 26 weeks and 5 days. Allowing termination of pregnancy will be a violation of Sections 3 and 5 of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act as there is no immediate danger to the mother, and this is not a case of foetal abnormality,” the bench said.
Dismissing the plea by the 27-year-old woman, mother of two children who claimed that “neither physically, mentally, psychologically or financially prepared to continue” with the unwanted pregnancy, the court dismissed an option to prematurely deliver the underdeveloped child. The apex court said the state may take care of the child after birth if parents do not want the baby.
Under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy (MTP) Act, the upper limit for the termination of pregnancy is 24 weeks for married women, special categories including survivors of rape, and other vulnerable women such as the differently-abled and minors. In an earlier ocassion, the CJI had remarked that “we cannot kill the child” as the court grappled with the moral dilemma over whether to order the child’s birth or respect the mother’s choice.
The top court also discussed the doctors’ opinion of a strong possibility that the child being born with serious physical or mental deformity if premature pregnancy was allowed. Earlier, justices Hima Kohli and B V Nagarathna had referred the case to the Chief Justice DY Chandrachud to constitute a three-judge bench following differences of opinion.
Justice Nagarathna, while “respectfully disagreeing” had earllier the other judge referred to the socio-economic condition of the petitioner, the fact that she already has two children and has reiterated that her mental condition and medicines which she is taking do not permit her to continue with the pregnancy, “I find that her decision must be respected by the court”.
Opposing the termination of pregnancy, justice Hima Kohli had said “which court will say stop the heartbeat of a foetus”. The court on Monday permitted the woman who has entered the third trimester to undergo the procedure of termination of her pregnancy at the AIIMS.
The bench also took exception to an October 10 e-mail addressed by one of the members of the medical board about the strong possibility of survival of the foetus, and asked which court will say “stop the fetal heartbeat”. If the doctor could be so candid in two days short of the earlier report, why was not the (earlier) report more elaborate and more candid?” the bench asked.
‘Termination is violation of MTP law’ ”Pregnancy is 26 weeks and 5 days. Allowing termination of pregnancy will be a violation of Sections 3 and 5 of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act as there is no immediate danger to the mother, and this is not a case of foetal abnormality,” CJI-led bench Follow channel on WhatsApp
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Monday junked a plea by a married woman seeking termination of her 26-week pregnancy. Putting an end to a conundrum over deciding between “the rights of the unborn child” and the “choice of the mother”,
a bench led by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud reached a conclusion on the basis of a medical board report from All-India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS). While asking the hospital to extend all medical help and assistance to the woman to complete with her pregnancy, the bench noted the pregnancy is not an immediate danger to the life of the woman and the foetus is healthy.
“Pregnancy is 26 weeks and 5 days. Allowing termination of pregnancy will be a violation of Sections 3 and 5 of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act as there is no immediate danger to the mother, and this is not a case of foetal abnormality,” the bench said.googletag.cmd.push(function() {googletag.display(‘div-gpt-ad-8052921-2’); });
Dismissing the plea by the 27-year-old woman, mother of two children who claimed that “neither physically, mentally, psychologically or financially prepared to continue” with the unwanted pregnancy, the court dismissed an option to prematurely deliver the underdeveloped child. The apex court said the state may take care of the child after birth if parents do not want the baby.
Under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy (MTP) Act, the upper limit for the termination of pregnancy is 24 weeks for married women, special categories including survivors of rape, and other vulnerable women such as the differently-abled and minors. In an earlier ocassion, the CJI had remarked that “we cannot kill the child” as the court grappled with the moral dilemma over whether to order the child’s birth or respect the mother’s choice.
The top court also discussed the doctors’ opinion of a strong possibility that the child being born with serious physical or mental deformity if premature pregnancy was allowed. Earlier, justices Hima Kohli and B V Nagarathna had referred the case to the Chief Justice DY Chandrachud to constitute a three-judge bench following differences of opinion.
Justice Nagarathna, while “respectfully disagreeing” had earllier the other judge referred to the socio-economic condition of the petitioner, the fact that she already has two children and has reiterated that her mental condition and medicines which she is taking do not permit her to continue with the pregnancy, “I find that her decision must be respected by the court”.
Opposing the termination of pregnancy, justice Hima Kohli had said “which court will say stop the heartbeat of a foetus”. The court on Monday permitted the woman who has entered the third trimester to undergo the procedure of termination of her pregnancy at the AIIMS.
The bench also took exception to an October 10 e-mail addressed by one of the members of the medical board about the strong possibility of survival of the foetus, and asked which court will say “stop the fetal heartbeat”. If the doctor could be so candid in two days short of the earlier report, why was not the (earlier) report more elaborate and more candid?” the bench asked.
‘Termination is violation of MTP law’
”Pregnancy is 26 weeks and 5 days. Allowing termination of pregnancy will be a violation of Sections 3 and 5 of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act as there is no immediate danger to the mother, and this is not a case of foetal abnormality,” CJI-led bench Follow channel on WhatsApp
[ad_2]
Source link