{"id":337277,"date":"2024-12-14T15:00:20","date_gmt":"2024-12-14T09:30:20","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=337277"},"modified":"2024-12-19T10:43:56","modified_gmt":"2024-12-19T05:13:56","slug":"mtp-act-raj-hc-directs-registration-of-suo-motu-case-to-address-reproductive-rights-awareness-legislative-reforms-scc-times","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/12\/14\/mtp-act-raj-hc-directs-registration-of-suo-motu-case-to-address-reproductive-rights-awareness-legislative-reforms-scc-times\/","title":{"rendered":"MTP Act | Rajasthan High Court directs registration of Suo Motu case to address Reproductive Rights Awareness & Legislative Reforms"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Rajasthan High Court:<\/span> In an appeal against the Single Judge’s order which despite recognising the psychological and social challenges faced by the appellant, allowed to continue the pregnancy, a Division Bench of M.M. Srivastava, CJ., and Uma Shankar Vyas, J., affirmed the Single Judge’s order to continue the pregnancy.<\/p>\n

Factual Matrix<\/h3>\n

In the instant matter, the appellant, a young woman and victim of human trafficking and sexual assault, was subjected to forced intercourse, leading to physical and psychological distress. The incident occurred on 07-05-2024, and an FIR was filed on 15-05-2024 under Sections 363<\/a>, 366-A<\/a>, and 370<\/a> of the IPC<\/a>, along with Sections 81<\/a> and 84<\/a> of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015<\/a>.<\/p>\n

After learning of her pregnancy, the appellant and her parents filed a writ petition seeking the Court’s directive to terminate the pregnancy under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971<\/a> (MTP Act). A Medical Board was constituted to evaluate the risks and submit a report. Initial medical assessments revealed the appellant’s age as between 19 and 20 years.<\/p>\n

The Single Judge directed a re-examination by the Medical Board after the first report was found inconclusive. The second report highlighted that the termination posed higher risks than continuing the pregnancy, however, the psychological well-being suggested that the termination might be favorable. Despite recognising the psychological and social challenges faced by the appellant, the Single Judge prioritised the medical risks and held that the pregnancy should continue. Aggrieved by the impugned order, the appellant, through her father filed an appeal and emphasised on her reproductive rights and sought the quashing of the Single Judge’s order. The appeal was filed nearly a month after the Single Judge’s decision, further advancing the pregnancy and complicating the issue.<\/p>\n

Moot Point<\/h3>\n
    \n
  1. \n

    Whether the pregnancy of the appellant should be terminated despite the advanced gestation period (31—32 weeks)?<\/p>\n<\/li>\n

  2. \n

    How to balance the victim’s reproductive rights, physical health, and psychological well-being against the medical risks of termination?<\/p>\n<\/li>\n

  3. \n

    Addressing delays in seeking legal recourse for termination of pregnancy in cases of sexual assault.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    Parties’ Contentions<\/h3>\n

    The appellant argued that forcing her to carry the pregnancy was a violation of her fundamental rights, particularly her reproductive autonomy under Article 21<\/a> of the Constitution of India<\/a>. It was contended that the psychological and social impacts of continuing the unwanted pregnancy are significant and more detrimental. It was stated that the termination of pregnancy in the present case is consistent with the principles of the MTP Act, which aims to address the needs of victims of sexual assault. The appellant placed reliance on X<\/span> v. Principal Secretary Health and Family Welfare<\/span>, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 905<\/a> and Meera Santosh Pal<\/span> v. Union of India<\/span>, (2017) 3 SCC 462<\/a>, and emphasised on a woman’s reproductive rights.<\/p>\n

    However, the State contended that termination at such an advanced stage posed significant risks to both the appellant and the fetus. It was emphasised that the victim is now over 31 weeks pregnant, and any surgical intervention would involve heightened medical risks. It was contended that the Single Judge’s decision to priorities medical safety and allow the pregnancy to continue was judicious and based on the recommendations of medical experts.<\/p>\n

    Law Points<\/h3>\n

    Medical Termination of Pregnancy (MTP) Act, 1971<\/a>:<\/span> Allows termination up to 24 weeks with medical and judicial supervision for pregnancies exceeding the statutory limit.<\/p>\n

    Constitutional Rights:<\/h3>\n