Facts and procedural history 1. Facts and procedural history 1. The petitioner states that she did not discover that she was pregnant until after twenty weeks of the pregnancy had elapsed because she had lactational amenorrhea. The petitioner avers that she and her husband attempted to medically terminate the pregnancy at various hospitals but that they were unable to because of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act 1971 (as amended in 2021). The report submitted to this Court by the Medical Board is extracted below: 5 By its order dated 9 October 2023, this Court allowed the petition and permitted the medical termination of the pregnancy on the ground that continuing with the pregnancy could seriously imperil the mental health of the petitioner. Ms Bhati informed this Court that in view of the email extracted above and the ensuing urgency, she mentioned the matter before Kohli, J (Nagarathna J was presiding over another Bench) and requested that it be listed. This was the appropriate course on the part of the ASG to follow since the Judges who had heard the petition (Justices Kohli and Nagarathna) were not sitting as a Bench thereafter and a special Bench had to be constituted.
Following the split verdict, the petition was directed to be listed before the present three judge Bench, in view of the difference of opinion between the two judges on the application for recall of the order dated 9 October 2023. The petitioner has a history of postpartum psychosis which is currently being controlled on medication. A revised medication regime was prescribed for optimal management of the postpartum psychosis. Where any pregnancy is alleged by the pregnant woman to have been caused by rape, the anguish caused by the pregnancy is presumed to constitute a grave injury to the mental health of the woman. The categories of women where a pregnancy beyond 20 weeks and up to 24 weeks may be terminated are permitted to be prescribed by rules made by the delegate of the legislature. Rule 3B of the MTP Rules (as amended in 2021) provides grounds for the termination of a pregnancy up to twenty-four weeks.
Significantly, if in the opinion of an RMP, the termination of a pregnancy is immediately necessary to save the life of a pregnant woman, the provisions of Section 3 which relate to the length of the pregnancy and the opinion of two RMPs shall not apply. Beyond twenty-four weeks If the termination is required to save the life of the pregnant woman, the opinion of one RMP in terms of Section 5 If there are substantial foetal abnormalities, with the approval of the 15 Medical Board in terms of Section 3(2B) read with Rule 3A(a)(i) C. It is trite law that once a judgment or order attains finality, a party seeking to challenge the decision rendered may do so only by taking recourse to one of the following: a.
Indeed, this Court has repeatedly deprecated the practice of filing applications for recall and noted that they may sometimes be an abuse of the process of the law. Kalyan Singh, this Court observed that Article 142 permitted it to relax the application of law depending upon the particular facts and circumstances of the case: 22. A medical termination of the pregnancy cannot be permitted for the following reasons: a.
There are no “substantial foetal abnormalities” diagnosed by a Medical Board in this case, in terms of Section 3(2B). Should the petitioner be inclined to give the child up for adoption, the Union Government has stated through the submission of the ASG that they shall ensure that this process takes place at the earliest, and in a smooth fashion.
