Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 14, Cited by 0]

Bombay High Court

Satroopa Santaram Nirmal vs State Of Maharashtra And 2 Ors on 11 May, 2021

Bench: K.K.Tated, Abhay Ahuja

                                                3. WPL 11232-21.odt


              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                  ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

                       WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 11232 OF 2021

       X (through her mother
       who is her legal guardian)                  ..... Petitioner

               Vs.

       The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ..... Respondents


       Mr. Ashley Cusher, Advocate for Petitioner.
       Ms. P.H. Kantharia, GP, for Respondent/State.
       Mr. Sandip Marne, Advocate for Respondent No. 3.


                                 CORAM:     K.K.TATED &
                                            ABHAY AHUJA, JJ

                                 DATED :    MAY 11, 2021

                          (VACATION COURT THROUGH VC)
       P.C.

       1.      Rule. With the consent of the counsel for the parties,
       Rule is made returnable forthwith.


       2.      Petitioner has been named 'X' in order to protect her
       identity.


       3.      This petition is fled by petitioner who is a minor girl
       aged 13 years and 9 months, through her father, for
       permission to undergo medical termination of pregnancy at
       J.J. Hospital, Mumbai in her 24th week of pregnancy.




       Nikita Gadgil                                                        1/13..




::: Uploaded on - 11/05/2021                 ::: Downloaded on - 12/05/2021 21:47:37 :::
                                                3. WPL 11232-21.odt


       4.      It is mentioned in the petition that an FIR was lodged
       at Rabale Police Station, Navi Mumbai under sections 376
       (2) (n) and 376 (3) of the I.P.C. and under sections 4 & 6 of
       the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences, Act, 2012.
       The Petitioner's mother has submitted that she is a
       vegetable vendor and the accused used to visit their shop on
       regular basis and at that time her victim daughter got
       acquainted with accused. As a result of sexual offence, the
       victim became pregnant.       In February 2021, Petitioner's
       mother noted that the Petitioner's abdomen area was
       bloated but ignored the same due to Petitioner's eating
       habits. However, in April 2021 Petitioner realised that she
       has no menstruation for past four months and so took her to
       Rajamata Jijau Hospital, Airoli for check-up, where it was
       found that Petitioner was pregnant for 23 weeks. The FIR
       was lodged on 30th April 2021. Since the pregnancy had
       exceeded the statutory period of 20 weeks prescribed under
       the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 (for short,
       'MTP Act'), the petitioner is seeking permission from this
       court to terminate her pregnancy.


       5.      We have heard Mr. Cusher, the learned Counsel for the
       petitioner and Ms. Kantharia, the learned GP for the
       Respondent.


       6.      The learned Counsel for the petitioner relied on a few
       judgments passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as
       different Division Benches of this Court dealing with the
       issue of granting permission for termination of pregnancy
       even after the statutory period of twenty weeks provided

       Nikita Gadgil                                                       2/13..




::: Uploaded on - 11/05/2021                ::: Downloaded on - 12/05/2021 21:47:37 :::
                                                       3. WPL 11232-21.odt


       under the MTP Act was over. He submitted that the mental
       trauma that the victim petitioner is undergoing because of
       the pregnancy caused due to the offence of rape was causing
       serious injury to her mental health. Besides this, there was
       inherent risk to her life because of pregnancy at such a
       tender age.


       7.      Considering the various directions issued by the
       Hon'ble Supreme Court, as well as, by different Division
       Benches of this Court, this Court on 6 th May 2021, directed
       the Medical Board of Sir. J. J. Group of Hospitals to submit a
       report about permitting medical termination of Petitioner's
       pregnancy to this Court, stated to be carrying twins.


       8.      Today, the report of the Committee is tendered before
       us in sealed envelope. The envelope is opened in the court.
       The report dated 10th May 2021 of the Committee reads
       thus:
             "After            careful    clinical         examination,
             ultasonography          examination     and      psychiatric
             evaluation, the committee has come to the
             opinion that at present no abnormality is detected
             in the twin foetuses or the pregnant minor
             mother. Pregnant minor and her parents do not
             wish to continue the pregnancy. The minor (13
             years and 10 months old) is anguished with the
             pregnancy.
                        Continuation of pregnancy in minor may
             lead to pregnancy related complications like
             anemia, pregnancy induced hypertension as well

       Nikita Gadgil                                                              3/13..




::: Uploaded on - 11/05/2021                       ::: Downloaded on - 12/05/2021 21:47:37 :::
                                                       3. WPL 11232-21.odt


             as increased operative interference during labour.
             It is also going to have psychological impact on
             pregnant          minor     with    uncertain          future.
             Termination of pregnancy at 24 weeks will carry
             risks similar to delivery at term.
               Pregnant minor and her parents have expressed
             their desire to terminate the pregnancy and are
             made aware of the dangers of continuation of
             pregnancy, as well as termination of pregnancy.
               Since the pregnancy has advanced to 24 weeks,
             well      beyond    legal   limit   of   termination           of
             pregnancy i.e. 20 weeks, the termination can only
             be done with Honourable High Court's permission.
               Though at 24 weeks of gestation, termination of
             pregnancy carries substantial risk to pregnant
             minor, continuation of pregnancy will have both
             physical and mental stress to minor mother.
             Hence, it is advisable to terminate the pregnancy
             in whichever institute the minor and her parents
             desire.
               If the permission for termination of pregnancy is
             granted, the honourable High Court is requested
             to instruct the parents to bear responsibility of
             the child and the required neonatal management
             if born alive."


       9.      The opinion of the committee mentions that the
       pregnancy is of 24 weeks. The members of the Board have
       opined that continuation of pregnancy in minor may lead to
       pregnancy related complications like anemia, pregnancy

       Nikita Gadgil                                                             4/13..




::: Uploaded on - 11/05/2021                      ::: Downloaded on - 12/05/2021 21:47:37 :::
                                                      3. WPL 11232-21.odt


       induced hypertension as              well as increased operative
       interference during labour; it is also going to have
       psychological impact on pregnant minor with uncertain
       future and that termination of pregnancy at 24 weeks will
       carry risks similar to delivery at term and though at 24
       weeks of gestation, termination of pregnancy carries
       substantial         risk   to   pregnant   minor,     continuation           of
       pregnancy will have both physical and mental stress to
       minor mother. It was therefore recommended that the
       pregnancy can be terminated with permission of this Court.

       10.     In this background, we considered various aspects of
       the matter in the light of the law laid down in this behalf by
       the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Court. Since this is an
       unfortunate case, it is necessary to consider some
       important aspects in this connection.

       11.     The MTP Act was enacted in the year 1971. Section 3
       of the MTP Act reads thus :
             "3.When pregnancies may be terminated by
             registered medical practitioners.--
             (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the
             Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), a registered
             medical practitioner shall not be guilty of any
             offence under that Code or under any other law for
             the time being in force, if any pregnancy is
             terminated by him in accordance with the
             provisions of this Act.
             (2) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (4), a
             pregnancy may be terminated by a registered
             medical practitioner,--
             (a) where the length of the pregnancy does not
             exceed twelve weeks, if such medical practitioner

       Nikita Gadgil                                                             5/13..




::: Uploaded on - 11/05/2021                      ::: Downloaded on - 12/05/2021 21:47:37 :::
                                                  3. WPL 11232-21.odt


             is, or
             (b) where the length of the pregnancy exceeds
             twelve weeks but does not exceed twenty weeks, if
             not less than two registered medical practitioners
             are,of opinion,formed in good faith, that--
             (i) the continuance of the pregnancy would involve
             a risk to the life of the pregnant woman or of grave
             injury to her physical or mental health; or
             (ii) there is a substantial risk that if the child were
             born, it would suffer from such physical or mental
             abnormalities as to be seriously handicapped.

             Explanation I.--Where any pregnancy is alleged by
             the pregnant woman to have been caused by rape,
             the anguish caused by such pregnancy shall be
             presumed to constitute a grave injury to the mental
             health of the pregnant woman.

             Explanation II.--Where any pregnancy occurs as a
             result of failure of any device or method used by
             any married woman or her husband for the purpose
             of limiting the number of children, the anguish
             caused by such unwanted pregnancy may be
             presumed to constitute a grave injury to the mental
             health of the pregnant woman.

             (3) In determining whether the continuance of a
             pregnancy would involve such risk of injury to the
             health as is mentioned in sub-section (2), account
             may be taken of the pregnant woman's actual or
             reasonably foreseeable environment.

             (4)(a) No pregnancy of a woman, who has not
             attained the age of eighteen years, or, who, having
             attained the age of eighteen years, is a[mentally ill
             person], shall be terminated except with the
             consent in writing of her guardian.
             (b) Save as otherwise provided in clause (a), no


       Nikita Gadgil                                                         6/13..




::: Uploaded on - 11/05/2021                  ::: Downloaded on - 12/05/2021 21:47:37 :::
                                                      3. WPL 11232-21.odt


             pregnancy shall be terminated except with the
             consent of the pregnant woman."


       12. Under Section 3(2)(b) of the MTP Act, the maximum
       period of pregnancy is prescribed as twenty weeks. The
       circumstances           under   which   the    pregnancy           can      be
       terminated are also set out under this Section. One such
       circumstance, as mentioned in Section 3(2)(b)(i) is that the
       termination of pregnancy is allowed if the continuance of
       the pregnancy involved a risk to the life of the pregnant
       woman or grave injury to her physical or mental health.
       Explanation 1 to this sub-section provides that when the
       pregnancy was caused by rape, it was presumed to
       constitute a grave injury to the mental health of the
       pregnant woman. In the instant case, this particular
       circumstance is clearly existing and there is no doubt that
       continuance of this pregnancy is causing a grave injury to
       the mental health of the petitioner. Apart from this, of
       course, considering her tender age of 13 years and 10
       months there is an inherent risk to her life. The only
       diffculty in the present case is that the statutory period of
       24 weeks is over, more than seven weeks ago. The
       petitioner has entered into 24th week of her pregnancy and,
       therefore, the MTP Act does not permit medical termination
       of pregnancy in such cases.


       13.     However, Sub-Section (1) of Section 5 of the MTP Act
       carves out an exception, which reads thus :
       "5. Sections 3 and 4 when not to apply. -
       (1) The provisions of section 4, and so much of the

       Nikita Gadgil                                                            7/13..




::: Uploaded on - 11/05/2021                     ::: Downloaded on - 12/05/2021 21:47:37 :::
                                                        3. WPL 11232-21.odt


       provisions of sub-section (2) of section 3 as relate to the
       length of the pregnancy and the opinion of not less than two
       registered medical practitioners, shall not apply to the
       termination of a pregnancy by a registered medical
       practitioner in a case where he is of opinion, formed in good
       faith, that the termination of such pregnancy is immediately
       necessary to save the life of the pregnant woman."


       14.     A Division Bench of this Court (Coram: A.S. Oka &
       M.S.      Sonak,        JJ.)   in   Writ   Petition     Nos.10835/2018,
       9748/2018 & OS Writ Petition (L) No.3172/2018, decided on
       3.4.2019 has discussed and dealt with similar issue. The
       Division Bench considered various judgments passed by the
       Hon'ble Supreme Court and discussed many issues. First
       and foremost, the Division Bench referred to the order of
       the Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in Writ Petition (Civil)
       No.928/2017, wherein it was observed that such cases could
       be fled in the respective High Courts having territorial
       jurisdiction. In paragraph-116, the Division Bench has
       observed that in such cases Writ Petition under Article 226
       of the Constitution of India will have to be instituted in this
       Court if the petitioner resides within the territorial
       jurisdiction of this Court or if the cause of action arises
       within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court to seek
       permission for termination of her pregnancy if such
       termination is not immediately necessary to save her life,
       but, where she alleges that the circumstances set out in
       clauses (i) & (ii) of Section 3(2)(b) of the MTP Act exist.




       Nikita Gadgil                                                               8/13..




::: Uploaded on - 11/05/2021                        ::: Downloaded on - 12/05/2021 21:47:37 :::
                                                       3. WPL 11232-21.odt


       15.     The       Division   Bench   also      considered           whether
       expression 'life' in Section 5 of the MTP Act was to be
       construed narrowly as antithesis to death or physical
       survival or whether it had to be liberally interpreted
       adopting the principles of purposive interpretation.


       16.      It was observed in paragraphs-79 and 80 that where
       the continuance of pregnancy poses grave injury to the
       physical or mental health of the mother, if the pregnant
       mother is forced to continue with her pregnancy merely
       because the pregnancy had extended beyond the ceiling of
       20 weeks, there would arise a serious affront to the
       fundamental right of such mother to privacy, to exercise
       reproductive choices, to bodily integrity and to her dignity.
       It was further observed that the principle of liberal or
       purposive construction would harmonize the provision in
       Section 5 of the MTP Act with the constitutional provisions.
       Based on some Supreme Court judgments, the Division
       Bench went on to observe that the right to life enshrined in
       Article 21 included the right to live with human dignity.


       17.     Considering all these facets, the Division Bench held,
       inter alia, where a pregnant woman, the length of whose
       pregnancy has exceeded 20 weeks, seeks to terminate such
       pregnancy on the ground that its continuance would involve
       grave injury to her physical or mental health or where
       there is a substantial risk that if the child were born, it
       would suffer from such physical or mental abnormalities as
       to be seriously handicapped, such pregnant woman will have
       to seek permission from the High Court and unless such

       Nikita Gadgil                                                              9/13..




::: Uploaded on - 11/05/2021                       ::: Downloaded on - 12/05/2021 21:47:37 :::
                                                      3. WPL 11232-21.odt


       permission is granted, no registered Medical Practitioner
       can terminate such pregnancy.


       18.     It was further held that, this Court, in exercise of its
       extraordinary jurisdiction          under     Article     226 of the
       Constitution of India, can permit medical termination of
       pregnancy the length of which exceeds 20 weeks, in
       contingencies set out in clauses (i) and (ii) of Section 3(2)
       (b) of the MTP Act. The Division Bench had directed the
       State to constitute Medical Boards for this purpose, which
       direction appears to have found place in the 2021
       amendment, though yet to be made effective.


       19. The Division Bench had further held that if medical
       termination of pregnancy was permitted and inspite of that
       if the child was born alive, then the registered Medical
       Practitioner and the hospital concerned was required to
       assume full responsibility to ensure that such child is
       offered         best    medical   treatment     available         in     the
       circumstances and in such cases if the parents of
       such child were not willing to or are not in a position to
       assume the responsibility for such child, then, the State and
       its agencies will have to assume full responsibility for such
       child in the best interests of such child and in accordance
       with the statutory provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act.


       20.     In view of the observations made in the aforesaid
       judgment of the Division Bench in W.P Nos.10835/2018,
       9748/2018 & OS W.P. (L) No.3172/2018, applying the ratio,
       guidelines and directions of this judgment to the facts of the

       Nikita Gadgil                                                          10/13..




::: Uploaded on - 11/05/2021                    ::: Downloaded on - 12/05/2021 21:47:37 :::
                                                         3. WPL 11232-21.odt


       case, we are of the considered view that petitioner will have
       to be permitted to undergo medical termination of
       pregnancy.


       21.     The report of the committee also mentions that the
       pregnant minor and her mother has been made aware of the
       dangers of continuation of pregnancy as well as termination
       of pregnancy.


       22.     Another Division Bench of this Court (Coram: R.M.
       Borde & N.J. Jamadar, JJ.) in Writ Petition No.6613/2019
       on 13.6.2019 has dealt with another important issue. It was
       observed in that judgment that since the pregnancy in that
       case was a result of physical abuse and since the FIR was
       lodged, directions were issued for preservation of the tissue
       sample, blood sample of the fetus for carrying out necessary
       medical tests including DNA, fnger printing/mapping and
       the Investigating Offcer was directed to forward the same
       to the Regional Forensic Laboratory. The learned Counsel
       for the petitioner submitted that similar directions needed
       to be issued in the instant case as well.


       23.     Considering the above discussion, following order is
       passed :
                                         ORDER

i. The petitioner is permitted to undergo medical termination of pregnancy as per Committee's report dated 10th May 2021, at Sir. J. J. Group of Hospitals, Mumbai.

       Nikita Gadgil                                                               11/13..




::: Uploaded on - 11/05/2021                         ::: Downloaded on - 12/05/2021 21:47:37 :::
                                                     3. WPL 11232-21.odt


ii. The Dean of the J. J. Group of Hospitals shall ensure that the procedure is performed at a place which satisfes all the requirements of the MTP Rules 2003 and the procedure shall be conducted by the Medical Practitioner who satisfes the conditions laid down under those rules.

iii. The blood sample and tissue sample of the fetus shall be preserved for the purpose of carrying out necessary medical tests including DNA and other tests. The Investigating Offcer conducting investigation shall ensure that the samples are forwarded to Forensic Science Laboratory and the samples shall be preserved for the purpose of trial of the offence.

iv. In case, if the child is born alive, the Medical Practitioner who conducts the procedure will ensure that all necessary medical facilities are made available to such child for saving it's life.

V. In case, if the child is born alive and if the petitioner and her parents are not willing or are not in a position to take responsibility of such a child then the State and its agencies will have to assume full responsibility for such child.

vi. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms.

vii. No order as to costs.

       Nikita Gadgil                                                           12/13..




::: Uploaded on - 11/05/2021                     ::: Downloaded on - 12/05/2021 21:47:37 :::
                                               3. WPL 11232-21.odt


viii. All concerned parties to act on the authenticated copy of this order. Learned A.G.P. is directed to send an authenticated copy of this order to the Investigating Offcer who is conducting investigation in the present case.

       (ABHAY AHUJA, J.)                         (K.K.TATED, J.)




       Nikita Gadgil                                                     13/13..




::: Uploaded on - 11/05/2021               ::: Downloaded on - 12/05/2021 21:47:37 :::