Skip to main content

Pregnancy from rape - terminate without prior permission of court

Allowing the plea of the petitioner (minor appearing through her guardian) wanting to medically terminate her pregnancy that resulted due to rape being committed upon her, the Court directed the District Medical Officer, Hisar to constitute a committee of 2 doctors to examine her and get her pregnancy terminated if she is in the right state of health. The Court referring an earlier case on this point reiterated the directions stating that in case where a rape victim irrespective of the fact that whether she is major or minor, if found pregnant and does not want to retain the foetus, then such pregnancy must be treated as involving grave mental injury and medical assistance shall be provided and the feasibility of terminating such pregnancy shall be considered.

In the instant case the victim’s request to medically terminate her pregnancy was rejected by the Court of JMIC, Hisar on the grounds that there is no legal provision to entertain such application. The petitioner was represented by P.K. Chugh.

Commenting upon the refusal by JMIC, the Court stated that in cases similar to the present case the victim should not be harassed by asking her to take permission from the courts as the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act does not lay down such a procedure. The Court further observed that if a plea of termination of pregnancy by a rape victim is made then it should be dealt with utmost sensitivity. [Vijender v. State of Haryana, CWP No.20783 of 2014, decided on 07.10.2014]

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Appellate authorities under Special Statutes cannot be asked to condone delay

Madras High Court in R.Gowrishankar vs. The Commissioner of Service Tax has held that Appellate authorities cannot be asked to condone the delay, beyond the extended period of limitation A Division Bench comprising of Justices S. Manikumar and D. Krishnakumar, made this observation while considering an appeal filed against Single Bench order declining to set aside the order made in the condone delay petition filed by the petitioner to condone 223 days in filing the appeal before the Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals). Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/appellate-authorities-special-statutes-cannot-asked-condone-delay-beyond-extended-period-limitation-madras-hc/
Post a Comment
Read more

'Seize assets to pay damages to accident victim'

Her story might be an inspiration for the physically challenged but justice has remained elusive for her. In 2008, a bus accident left research engineer S Thenmozhi, 30, paraplegic. In April 2013, the motor accident claims tribunal directed the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (TNSTC) to provide her a compensation of 57.9 lakh. However, TNSTC refused to budge and on Tuesday a city court ordered attaching of movable assets of the transport corporation. Thenmozhi was employed in C-DOT, a telecom technology development centre in Bangalore. On July 21, 2008, she was coming to Chennai in a private bus. Around 2am, the bus had a flat tyre and the driver parked it on the left side of the road near Pallikonda in Vellore district on the Bangalore-Chennai highway. While the tyre was being changed, a TNSTC bus of Dharmapuri division hit the stationary bus. The rear part of the bus was smashed and passengers were injured. Thenmozhi who had a seat at the back of the bus suffered...
Post a Comment
Read more

Mumbai ITAT rules income of offshore discretionary trust is subject to tax in India

The Mumbai Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has recently determined the following issue in the affirmative in the case of Manoj Dhupelia: Should the income of an offshore discretionary trust be subject to tax in India, if no distributions have been made to beneficiaries in India? The question arose from appeals filed by individual beneficiaries in relation to a Lichtenstein-based trust, the Ambrunova Trust and Merlyn Management SA (the Trust) with the ITAT. It is important to note that the individuals in this case were amongst those first identified by the Government of India (GOI) as holding undeclared bank accounts in Lichtenstein. The ITAT ruling raises the following issues: Taxation of Trust Corpus: ITAT classified the corpus of the trust as "undisclosed income" and declared it taxable in the hands of the beneficiaries. Taxation of Undistributed Income: ITAT refused to draw a distinction between the corpus and undistributed income from the trust and declared i...
Post a Comment
Read more