Harshita Sharma
Published on: July 16, 2022 at 17:20 IST
A Division Bench Comprising Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad reserved the order while listening to a petition filed by a woman in her twenties seeking to terminate her 24-week-old pregnancy. Separation from her partner led her to file the present petition in front of the court. The court opined that a significant time had passed since the petitioner had gotten pregnant and that the option of giving up the child for adoption should be considered in the present case. The court said, “Why are you killing the child? There isa big queue for adoptions…We are not forcing her (Petitioner) to raise the child. We will ensure that she goes to a good hospital. Her whereabouts will not be known. You give birth and come back.”
The legal bar on termination of pregnancy lies at the end of 20 weeks, beyond which a child can be aborted only under certain circumstances specified under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy (Amendment) Act, 2021. Section 3(2)(b) of the Amendment Act states that a registered medical practitioner may terminate a pregnancy if the length of the pregnancy exceeds 20 weeks but does not exceed 24 weeks in the case of vulnerable women (including rape victims) if not less than two registered medical practitioners believe that— I the continuation of the pregnancy would involve a risk to the pregnant woman’s life or grave injury to her physical or mental health.
The petitioner contended under section 3(2)(b) that she was neither physically nor mentally fit and did not have the stable financial condition required to raise a child on her own. However, the court observed that she had carried the child for a considerable amount of time. Killing it merely a month before the delivery would practically mean that the child itself is being killed and not the fetus. Hence, the court reserved the order and decided that the matter ought to be referred to AIIMS for their expert opinions.