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

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more

Court approached in the early stages of arbitration will prevail in all other subsequent proceedings

In National Highway Authority of India v. Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court opined that once the parties have approached a certain court for relief under Act at earlier stages of disputes then it is same court that, parties must return to for all other subsequent proceedings. Language of Section 42 of Act is categorical and brooks no exception. In fact, the language used has the effect of jurisdiction of all courts since it states that once an application has been made in Part I of the Act then ―that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court. Court holds that NHAI in present case cannot take advantage of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for explaining inordinate delay in filing present petition under Section 34 of this Act in this Court.
Post a Comment
Read more

Procedure to be followed on admissibility of additional evidence at appeal stage

In The Corporation of Madras vs M. Parthasarathy & Ors., the trial court had allowed the respondent company to file evidence in the form of photocopies and had dismissed all the four suits filed by the respondents with costs as the evidence were in the form of photocopies and were objected to by the respondents. On appeal the Additional District Judge allowed the respondents to file additional evidence in the form the original documents of the earlier admitted photocopies and based on the same allowed the appeal. In its turn the High Court also dismissed the appeal filed by the appellants who in turn approached the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court decided that the first Appellate Court committed two jurisdictional errors in allowing the appeals.  Referring to earlier judgements of the Supreme Court in Land Acquisition Officer, City Improvement Trust Board vs. H. Narayanaiah & Ors., , Shalimar Chemical Works Ltd. vs. Surendra Oil & Dal Mills (Refineri...
Post a Comment
Read more