Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Sarita Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 29 June, 2018

   HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : JABALPUR


                           W.P. No.13583/2018
                  [Sarita Singh vs. State of M.P. & ors.]

Jabalpur dated, 29-6-2018 :
         Shri Devashish Sakalkar, learned counsel for the petitioner.
         Shri Ankit Agrawal, learned Govt. Advocate for the State.
         The petitioner - Sarita Singh has appeared in person before
this Court along with her counsel.


         The petitioner has alleged to be a rape-victim and in the
present case a direction has been prayed, for termination of
pregnancy being carried on by the petitioner.          The petitioner has
made a specific statement before this Court that she is a victim of
rape and, therefore, she does not want to give birth.
         This Court by order dated 27-6-2018 had directed the Dean,
Netaji     Subhash    Chandra      Bose   Medical   College,   Jabalpur   to
constitute a committee of three registered medical practitioners in
order to examine the petitioner in the light of the provisions of the
Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 [for brevity `the Act
1971].
         In compliance to the aforesaid order, the petitioner was
examined by the Committee of three senior Gynecologists, duly
constituted by the Dean,           Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose Medical
College, Jabalpur on 28-6-2018 at 12:25 noon. The Committee has
given its report as under:


                   "The provisional diagnosis of the patient is
             Antenatal case with 22 weeks 3 days pregnancy
             after alleged rape.
                   The Committee is of the opinion that:
                   1. Since the pregnancy is beyond 20 weeks
             of gestation, termination of pregnancy is not
             possible as per mandate of the Medical Termination
             of Pregnancy Act, 1971.
                                         2



                   2.   However,   if       the   Court   deems   it
           necessary and so permits, termination of Sarita's
           pregnancy may be done.             While there are no
           obvious risks at present, unforeseeable risks do
           exist and cannot be predicted with certainty."


      The Committee has opined that as per provisions of the Act
1971, termination of pregnancy is permissible upto 20 weeks of
gestation. In the present case, the pregnancy is of 22 weeks and 3
days, however, it has been opined that in case termination of
pregnancy is allowed, there are obvious risks to the victim at
present.
      The petitioner submits that she is not willing to carry on the
pregnancy and she is agreeable to run the risks. Counsel for the
petitioner submits that termination of the pregnancy may be done
in the Medical College, Jabalpur as better medical facilities are
available there.
      A co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Sunderlal
vs. The State of M.P. and others [W.P. No.20961/2017,
decided on06-12-2017] has taken into consideration a case
under similar situation. It is laid down that a victim of rape cannot
be compelled to give birth to child of rapist. It is further held that if
the conditions enumerated in the Act 1971 are accomplished,
pregnancy of the victim can be terminated.
      The rape victim has a valuable right to take decision
regarding termination of pregnancy and such right is flowing from
Article 21 of the Constitution of India.          Reference is made to the
judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Chandrakant
Jayantilal Suthar and another vs. State of Gujrat, (2015) 8
SCC 721.
      Taking into consideration the statement of the petitioner
herself and also the judgment passed by the Apex Court in
Chandrakant Jayantilal Suthar and another (supra) which was
followed in the subsequent judgments rendered in the cases of
Meera Santosh Pal and others vs. Union of India and others,
(2017) 3 SCC 462 and X and others vs. Union of India and
                                                3



others, (2017) 3 SCC 458 coupled with the fact that the
petitioner-victim has valuable rights to take a decision regarding
termination of her pregnancy as enshrined under Article 21 of the
Constitution of India and the medical report of the Committee, the
instant writ petition is disposed of with the following directions:


       (i)     The    Committee           of       the     Medical     College,
       Jabalpur      shall     examine         the        conditions   of    the
       petitioner before carrying out termination of the
       pregnancy and in case they are of the considered
       opinion, that no other complications are there in
       carrying out termination of the pregnancy, the same
       will be conducted in the Netaji Subhash Chandra
       Bose Medical College, Jabalpur.


       (ii)    The Chief Medical & Health Officer, Jabalpur and
       the Dean,          Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose Medical
       College,      Jabalpur     shall        personally        monitor     and
       ensure      that      termination        of       pregnancy     of    the
       petitioner is carried out with extreme care and
       caution. They will also ensure all medical aids and
       assistance      to    be   provided           to    the   victim     after
       termination of her pregnancy, free of costs.


       (iii)   The respondents are further directed that after

termination of the pregnancy, they will keep safe the DNA sample of the foetus in a sealed cover as per prescribed procedure.

(iv) At the cost of repetition, in my opinion, there is a great urgency in this matter, considering the duration of pregnancy and medical report given thereon. Thus, it will be the solemn duty of the respondents to ensure compliance of this order in stricto sensu.

(v) A typed copy of this order be given to Shri Ankit Agrawal, Govt. Advocate for the State during course of the day for doing the needful. Shri Agrawal is requested to communicate this order to the respondents forthwith.

With the aforesaid observation and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of.

C.c. as per rules today.

(Vijay Kumar Shukla) V. Judge ac.