In the case of sexual assault, denying a woman right to say no to medical termination of pregnancy and fasten her with responsibility of motherhood would amount to denying her human right to live with dignity as she has a right in relation to her body which includes saying Yes or No to being a mother.
Bombay High Court upheld the petitioner's right to choose termination of pregnancy. ‘The Court considers this petition as an appeal not only to the judicial mind, but to the moral conscience that must accompany it.'
by Erina Chatterjee*
Punjab and Haryana High Court: While deciding the writ petition, a bench of Vinod S. Bhardwaj, J., directed the Medical Board to
“The nature of sexual violence and the contours of consent do not undergo a transformation when one decides to marry. The institution of marriage does not influence the answer to the question of whether a woman has consented to sexual relations. If the woman is in an abusive relationship, she may face great difficulty in accessing medical resources or consulting doctors.”
While the interim order was passed in the case on 21.07.2022, the Supreme Court took over two months to write a far-reaching 75-pages-long verdict, touching upon various aspects like purposive interpretation of Medical Termination of Pregnancy laws, equal status of married and unmarried or single women, right to reproductive autonomy, right to dignity, effect of unwanted pregnancy on mental health of women, etc.
“Denying an unmarried woman the right to a safe abortion violates her personal autonomy and freedom.”
Orissa High Court: S. K. Panigrahi, J. disposed of the petition and refused to terminate 24+ week pregnancy of a rape victim.
by Pavitra Naidu*
Bombay High Court: A Division Bench of R.M. Borde and N.J. Jamadar, JJ. allowed a petition for termination of pregnancy of the petitioner
High Court of Himachal Pradesh: While deciding a writ petition, a Division Bench comprising of Dharam Chand Chaudhary, J. and Vivek Singh
Bombay High Court: A Division Bench comprising of Ranjit More and Prakash D. Naik, JJ. heard a petition requesting termination of pregnancy
Supreme Court: The 3-judge bench of Dipak Misra, CJ and AM Khanwilkar and Dr. DY Chandrachud, JJ issued notice to the Central
Supreme Court: The 3-judge bench of Dipak Misra, CJ and Amitava Roy and AM Khanwilkar, JJ allowed a 13-year-old rape survivor to terminate
Supreme Court: The 10-year-old girl, who’s plea to terminate her pregnancy was refused by the Supreme Court on 28.07.2017, will receive Rs.
Supreme Court: In the case where a 35-year-old woman was not allowed to abort her foetus by the Patna High Court as
Supreme Court: The bench of SA Bobde and L Nageswara Rao, JJ allowed a 26-year-old woman, who is in 25th week of
Supreme Court: Based on the medical report of the 10-year-old rape survivor who was repeatedly raped by her uncle, the Court said
Supreme Court: Hearing the appeal of a 10 year old rape survivor aggrieved by the order of a Chandigarh Court that refused
By Aakanksha Saxena*