Author- HERAMBH BHATIA, GITARATTAN INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS SCHOOL AFFILIATED WITH GURU GOBIND SINGH INDRAPRASTHA UNIVERSITY
CASE DETAILS
|
i) Judgement Cause Title / Case Name |
Danbahadur Rajkaram Yadav vs State of Maharashtra and Others |
|
ii) Case Number |
Writ Petition No. 3874 of 2017 |
|
iii) Judgement Date |
October 13, 2017 |
|
iv) Court |
Bombay High Court, Supreme Court |
|
v) Quorum / Constitution of Bench |
2 – Judge Bench |
|
vi) Author / Name of Judges |
For High Court, Honourable Justice Rahul Chaturvedi Honourable Justice Gajendra Kumar For Supreme Court, Honourable Justice Adarsh Kuma Goel Honourable Justice Uday Umesh Lalit |
|
vii) Citation |
Danbahadur Rajkaram Yadav vs State of Maharashtra and Others, Bom HC |
|
viii) Legal Provisions Involved |
Section 3 of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act (MTPA) of 1971 |
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT
This case is filed by Danbahadur Rajkaram Yadav, a father, for the Abortion of his 15 years old daughter, who is a rape victim and is running into 27 weeks of Pregnancy. The Court had directed the Director of the G.S. Medical College and KEM Hospital to form a board of doctors to determine the Health Implications of such a procedure on the health of the Minor Child.
FACTS OF THE CASE
Procedural Background of the Case:
The Court had directed the Director of G.S. Medical College and K.E.M. Hospital, Parel, Mumbai to form a panel of doctors to examine the Health Implications involved in the abortion of the Foetus on the life of the Minor Rape Victim. The Minor appeared for the Examination at KEM Hospital G.S. Medical College at 10 a.m. on October 11th,
The Panel of Doctors consisted of the following Eight Doctors namely as follows:
- Dr, Avinash N. Supe (Medical Education and Major Hospitals) and Dean (G & S), Chairman
- Amar Pazre, Professor and HOD, Medicine, K & M Hospital
- Ajita Nayak, Professor, Psychiatry, KEM Hospital
- Y.S. Nandanwar, Ex-Professor and HOD, Obstetrics and Gynaecology, LTMMC and LTMG Hospital
- Indrani Hemantkumar Chincholi, Professor and HOD, Anaesthesia, KEM Hospital
- Ruchi Nanavati, Professor and HOD, Neonatology, KEM Hospital
- Hemangni Thallar, Additional Professor, Radiology, KEM Hospital
- Padamja Samant, Additional Professor and Unit Head, Obstetrics and Gynaecology, KEM Hospital
Factual Background of the Case:
On 10th October 2017, Petitioner had approached the Court for the abortion of his Minor Daughter of 15 Years who was a Rape Victim, who was running into 27 Weeks of Pregnancy, while citing the case of Meera Santosh Pal vs Union of India [WP (Civil) No. 17 of 2017] decided on 16.01.2017 and stating that pregnancy would cause grave injury to the Girl.
LEGAL ISSUES RAISED
- Can the Pregnancy of the Minor Rape Victim be eliminated, if the Pregnancy poses grave danger to the life of the Victim?
- Can Abortion be allowed even if the Pregnancy has crossed the threshold of 20 Weeks set by the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act (MTPA), 1971?
PETITIONER / APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS
- The counsels for Petitioner / Appellant submitted that the Abortion of the Minor Girl be allowed as the Pregnancy poses grave danger to the life of 15 years old Rape Victim.
RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS
- The counsels for Respondent submitted that the Girl had appeared before the panel of the KEM Hospital and G.S. Medical College, and in the report submitted by the panel of doctors, it was clearly stated that the Petitioner’s daughter should continue with the Pregnancy, as she is 26-27 Weeks Pregnant with viable Foetus which has no abnormality.
RELATED LEGAL PROVISIONS
- Section 3 of Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act (MTPA), 1971
JUDGEMENT
RATIO DECIDENDI:
- The Court reasoned that the Minor should continue with the Pregnancy, and would be provided with all the psychological and physical support required to guide her through pregnancy since the panel of doctors involved in the Examination of the Girl opined the same.
OBITER DICTA:
- The Petition for abortion of the Minor Girl, who was a Rape Victim, with a Pregnancy of 26-27 Weeks was rejected.
CONCLUSION & COMMENTS
In the Danbahadur Rajkaram Yadav vs State of Maharashtra decided on 13th October 2017, it was held that the Minor Girl should continue with the Pregnancy of 26-27 weeks, because the panel of Doctors of G.S. Medical College and KSM Hospital, who were directed to do the Medical Examination of the Girl and provide their expertise on the Subject Matter, opined that the fetus doesn’t have any abnormality and abortion would pose a threat to her life, after her Examination on 11th of October of 2017, at G.S. Medical College and KEM Hospital in Parel, Mumbai at 10 a.m.. Hence, the Court Dismissed the Petition stating that the girl would be provided with the full psychological and physical support required to guide her through the Pregnancy.
REFERENCES
Important Cases Referred:
The Important case/judgment that is referred to in this case, is the Landmark Judgement given by the Apex Court or Supreme Court of India in the case of Meera Santosh Pal vs Union of India [WP (Civil) No. 17 of 2017] decided on 16.01.2017 and referred by the Petitioners in order to support their claims for abortion of the minor girl of 15 Years of Age.
In this case, Meera Santosh Pal was diagnosed with a pregnancy of 24 Weeks with a fetus whose several body organs and parts of the brain had not been developed because of which the fetus wouldn’t have been able to survive outside the womb. By the Medical examination, it was confirmed that the pregnancy posed certain health complications for Meera as well, after which the Apex Court allowed abortion. This case emphasized the fact that if the pregnancy poses certain threats to the life of the mother, then Abortion may be allowed in such situations if the Opinion of Medical Practitioners also supports the same. Some light was also shed on the Limitations of allowing Abortion stated in the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act (MTPA) of 1971 by this Judgement given by the Apex Judicial Authority, i.e., the Supreme Court of India.
Important Statutes Referred:
The Important Statute that is referred to in this case is Section 3 of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act (MTPA) of 1971. This Section was emphasized in this case as it specifically focuses on the fact that the gestational period of pregnancy should not exceed 20 weeks. It also provides that there should be the same opinion of at least two medical practitioners who must agree about the risk posed to a girl by the pregnancy, which is of either physical or mental nature.
It also provides that abortion that crosses the threshold of 20 weeks may be allowed only in case of emergency situations, and for this, the opinion of only One Medical Practitioner is also sufficient as well. This Section while providing for the pre-requisite requirement of consent by the woman or her guardian for the procedure of Abortion also states that Practitioners involved in this procedure are protected from the Criminal Liability arising from the removal of the Foetus, only if they have complied with the provisions of Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act (MTPA) of 1971.
