High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCWP/4885/2024disposed of

Dhriti Jain v. State Of Punjab And Others

2024-03-11Mr. Justice Vinod S. Bhardwaj65 pages

!"# $%& ' (

)* $+ ,!$%$-%./%*& 00 (

*4*4$%!

5! -

7 ,$%#%*

8 9 6 5

***** Argued by Mr. Gaurav Chopra, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. Shehbaz Thind, Advocate, Mr. Gagandeep Singh, Advocate, Mr. Jagraj Singh, Advocate, Mr. Buta Singh, Advocate, Mr. Rishabh Bajaj, Advocate and Ms. Sanjana Makkar, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. Vivek Saini, Advocate, (Amicus Curiae).

Mr. Saurav Verma, Addl. A.G. Punjab with Mr. Aditya Sharda, DAG, Punjab.

2 5

Considering the nature of the case and the future prospects in the life of the young girl who is the petitioner before this Court, Registry is directed to conceal the identity of the petitioner and carry out appropriate steps to hide the details that would disclose or reveal her identity. For the facility of reference, the petitioner shall be referred to as 'X' and the case title be recorded as 'X' Vs. State of Punjab and others. The present writ petition had been filed on 29.02.2024 for seeking directions to the doctors at Rajindra Hospital, Patiala, to carry out termination of pregnancy of the petitioner by constituting a Medical Board.

Briefly, the facts of the case are that the petitioner whose date of birth is (dd/mm/yy) and aged about 18 years 7 months, met a boy around an year ago and they fell in love with each other. As a result of their growing proximity, they entered into physical relations with each other but both of them parted ways later. Petitioner is a student of 12th Standard and during her ongoing Board examinations, she felt pain in her abdomen for which she was diagnosed by the doctors of Rajindra Hospital, Patiala to be pregnant. Petitioner is under immense pressure for having conceived a child when she herself is of tender age and is a student appearing in her 10+2 Board Examinations. She is apprehensive that her entire career and future prospects shall suffer a huge set back in case the pregnancy is not permitted to be terminated at this stage. She is herself of a tender age and is not mentally prepared to give birth. The unwanted pregnancy shall subject her to enhanced social stigma and

3 incarceration. A prayer is thus made for being granted permission for termination of the pregnancy by relying on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of

. The relevant part of the judgment is extracted as under:

" ! #

!$ #

! #

& !' Considering that a legal issue is involved as to whether the permission for termination of the pregnancy can be granted at this juncture or not, counsel for the respondentState made a statement that there is no need to file reply and that they shall advance arguments on the petition itself. Additionally, Sh. Vivek Saini, Advocate was also appointed as Amicus by this Court to assist in the matter.

4 When the matter came up for preliminary hearing, vide order dated 29.02.2024, the respondentState of Punjab was directed to constitute a Medical Board to carry out physical examination of the petitioner and submit its report as regards the mental, physical and psychological status of the petitioner.

The petitioner appeared before the said Medical Board and a report was received from the Centre Administrator. The same is extracted as under:

% ( ) *+%*,% * +# - . - . / #0

1 !20%+334% * + 5 6 5

# ! /( / #

! )

# 78 -". -.#8 -9.

1 ! -

.# 0 6 ! 8 3 : #

- .

;6 ! )

/ #

! )

< " ! )

! )

# # ! )

# !

! 00 % %

# / #0! +=,= * +!' A report was also submitted by the Medical Board of Rajindra Hospital, Patiala, which is extracted as under:

"# %

6 >

# ! % % 3+= ?0%

*=:* 5 0

% ,* $8 %@ A % ;" $ % "

% 5 # "# ! 5

! ( " #

% ! 1

# #

# ! &

,=* = * + /

+B " ! $5%

:= 0 % C&

& (

/ / 2 ) 8!DE<#

7 8 ?

DE<)=(DF< 3:

" ! 5 A

,=* = * +# +B

! 8!;6GH

/ / 2)! )!;6G

0 ;

)! )!/ G

0 0 )! )!I >

0 0) )!0 /

0 $ ) )!/G

0 ( !J> )!' It was, however, noticed from a perusal of the above said medical report that the said Board merely reiterated the report of the ultrasound conducted earlier on 23.02.2024 without any recommendation of its own. In view of incomplete report and recommendation of the Medical Board, petitioner was referred for

8 medical examination by the Medical Board of the Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, (PGIMER), Chandigarh, to make a recommendation as to whether it would be safe for her to undergo medical termination of pregnancy or not. In compliance of the said order dated 05.03.2024, petitioner was medically examined by the Board of Doctors of the PGIMER, Chandigarh and its report is extracted as under: "Subject. Regarding orders from court of Justice Vinod S Bhardwaj, Judge, Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh / UID No CWP48852024 dated 05.03.2024 wherein Medical Superintendent, PGI has been requested to constitute a Medical Board immediately. The Medical Board to submit report about the medical condition of the patient and to give its opinion about the stage of her pregnancy and to report if it is safe for her to undergo the medical termination of her pregnancy or not.

Details of patient (X) 18 yrs female CR No (xxx xxx xxx) The patient was evaluated by the Permanent Medical Board in its meeting held on 06/03/2024 Following observations were made:

1. As per the ultrasound done on 06/03/202,at PGIMER, the period of gestation is 25 weeks+5 days with single live healthy intrauterine fetus with estimated fetal weight 763 113gms. No gross congenital malformation seen.

2. The patient is medically and physically fit to undergo a procedure

3. The detailed psychiatric evaluation done is suggestive of psychological distress due to her current situation She is expressing suicidal ideation in case of continuation of pregnancy. Hence, she will require further psychological assessments, monitoring and support.

4. Keeping in view the current gestation of pregnancy, termination carries more than the usual risks for the patient.

5. At this gestational age and condition of fetus, it is likely to be born alive. There is a likely neonatal survival of around 6065%. The newborn will be very preterm and likely to have several complications related to prematurity and will require NICU admission and ventilation for prolonged period. All these will lead to significant morbidity including neurodevelopmental handicap in the long run.

6. Hence, in view of the above, the Permanent Medical Board suggests that the pregnancy may be continued as per the natural course. The Board also recommends hospital admission of the patient for further psychiatric evaluation, psychological support and treatment. In the event of continuation of her pregnancy, she may be advised regular obstetric checkups and institutional delivery. Prof. Y.S. Bansal (Member) Dr Shalim Naik (Member) Prof Rashy Bagga (Chairperson)

10 Prof. KanyaMukhopadhyay (Member) Prof Shefali Sharma (Member) Nidhikabhoker br Or Nidhi Prabhakar (Member) Dr Navin Pandey (Convener)"

The above said report was shown to the counsel representing the respective parties as well as the learned along with suggestions/recommendations of the Permanent Medical Board of the PGIMER, who opined that pregnancy be continued as per natural course.

Learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of ' $ % (

)% *+ ,

- .

/.., where termination of pregnancy beyond a period of 24 weeks was allowed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It was held that a woman's right to reproductive choice is an inseparable part of her personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. She has a sacrosanct right to bodily integrity and a woman's right to reproductive autonomy is a dimension of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which such right already stands recognized in the case of

( ) and reiterated in the matter of 0 1$ 2%

& +3

. It was held in the judgment of 0 1 $ 2% that privacy of the body entitles an individual to the integrity of the physical aspects of personhood. The

11 intersection between one's mental integrity and privacy entitles the individual to freedom of thought, the freedom to believe in what is right, and the freedom of self− determination. When these guarantees intersect with gender, they create a private space which protects all those elements which are crucial to gender identity. The family, marriage, procreation and sexual orientation are all integral to the dignity of the individual. Above all, the privacy of the individual recognises an inviolable right to determine how freedom shall be exercised. It was noticed that the petitioner had moved the High Court before she had completed 24 weeks of pregnancy and that delay in judicial process cannot work to her prejudice. An interim order was accordingly passed for carrying out abortion of the foetus without danger to the life of the petitioner.

Reliance is also placed on the judgment of Bombay High Court in 5 +6 * $ 7 8 .94+ . . wherein it was held that the decision to continue with the termination or not has to be that of the petitioner and the same is not to be substituted by an opinion of the Medical Board. Further, reliance was also placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of : ; %

& +3

< .

.., wherein a 26 week pregnancy was allowed to be terminated by recognizing the right of a woman to have reproductive choice as an insegregable part of personal liberty.

12 Reliance was also made on certain other single bench and Division Bench Judgments of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Rajasthan as well as Madhya Pradesh High Court which reiterated the said principles, however, the same are not being extracted since they are not applicable to the facts of the present case and even otherwise, the right of a woman to make reproductive choices is not even disputed. Emphatic reliance was placed on the judgment in the matter of :% 1 & +3

< !

5../, wherein a 27 week pregnancy was permitted to be terminated considering freedom of a pregnant woman of making choice of reproduction is an integral part of personal liberty. Relying on the aforesaid judgments and the position in law espoused through the same, learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner emphatically argues that the law and the Courts have recognized the right of a woman to make a reproductive choice and to determine whether she would want to give birth to a child or not and that the said decision of the woman cannot be overruled by an opinion of a Medical Board.

He further submits that the report of the Medical Board of PGIMER, Chandigarh suggests that the petitioner has expressed suicidal ideation in case of continuation of pregnancy and as such, denial of permission of medical termination of pregnancy to the petitioner would set in motion a severe psychological impact on the petitioner. He further contends that the petitioner herself being of tender age at 18 years is not in a position to bring up a child on her own.

13 future, career and matrimonial prospects shall be gravely hampered if termination of pregnancy is denied. He laid emphasis that the permission for medical termination should not be denied solely because the petitioner was in a consensual relationship and has become pregnant due to unprotected sex. A woman cannot be discriminated with respect to her reproductive choices and determination which are integral and insegregable part of Article 21 of the Constitution of India under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act and the rules framed thereunder. Giving birth to an unwanted child would not only be harmful for physical and psychological wellbeing of the mother but is also not in the wellbeing of an unwanted child who is likely to suffer social stigma, desertion and unacceptability. The feeling of a void of such a child cannot be filled up. Thus, it would be in the larger welfare of the mother as well as the unborn child that permission for medical termination be granted.

A specific query was also put to the learned Senior counsel representing the petitioner as to whether in an eventuality where the Court may not agree to the grant of permission for medical termination of pregnancy, the petitioner would be willing to bring up the child or she would like to surrender the child to the State with no objection to the child being given in adoption. Counsel for the petitioner, on instructions, submits that the petitioner does not intend to and is not willing to keep the child and in such an eventuality, would rather surrender the child to the Care and protection of the State and would have no objection for the said child being given in adoption.

14 Learned counsel for the respondentState of Punjab has, on the other hand, contended that the provisions of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act and the rules framed thereunder stipulate termination of pregnancy for a period upto 24 weeks and that such right has been made available to the women who are survivors of sexual assault or rape or incest; minors; change of marital status during pregnancy; women with physical disability; or women suffering from mental challenges; or on account of fetal malformation which has substantial risk of being incompatible with life or due to severe physical or mental abnormalities/handicap or in situations where due to disaster, emergency or humanitarian setting, the Government may so declare. The case of the petitioner does not fall under any of the said categories.

He relies upon the report submitted by the Medical Board of the PGIMER as per which the foetus is of 26 weeks and there is no congenital malformation and that the patient as well as the child were both healthy. It was also contended by the Medical Board that chances of neonatal survival are around 60 to 65 % and that the foetus is likely to be born alive and a premature forced delivery is likely to cause severe neurodevelopment handicap in the long run rendering the child dependent for the rest of his life. He further submits that such a forced medical termination of the pregnancy at such advance stage would thus disregard the wellbeing of the child who is likely to be delivered, pursuant to an order passed by this Court.

15 approached this Court on 29.02.2024 when she was already pregnant for 26 weeks. He submits that the benefit of the time lapse during the process of Court could be extended only when a patient has approached the Court prior to 24 weeks of pregnancy but where the statutorily prescribed period for termination of pregnancy had already expired, such benefit cannot be extended. Adverting to the judgments relied upon by the learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, he submits that after the judgment in the matter of ' $ %(

)% *+ , .

/.., a similar issue came up before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of ' & + 3

. 38 , where a married woman had approached the Court for seeking the termination of pregnancy after 24 weeks and that when the matter came up for hearing before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, she had been pregnant for 26 weeks, it was recommended by the Medical Board that considering the duration of the pregnancy, it will not be a case of medical termination of pregnancy and would rather be a preterm delivery and that a directive would rather be required for carrying out a feticide (stopping the fetal heart) before the termination. Such feticide is although recognized, where a foetus has abnormal development, but the same is usually not resorted to for a normal foetus. The said matter was put up before a medical board of 09 doctors of AIIMS and its report was received, which reported that there was no abnormality in the foetus and that the medical complications faced by the mother could be tackled and taken care of by proper medication. After consideration of the scenario and also the judgments relied upon by the petitioner as extracted above, the Hon'ble

16 Supreme Court denied the medical termination of the pregnancy. The operative part of the said judgment reads thus: +! # %

! " % " ! K !5 %

# & / ,- ?. / 4 L

! 7

8 ?

! / ,- ?.!

L ! 1

8 ?

# / 4!

4!A + #

6 !5 #

# 8/ #

! #

8 ?

B!$ #

8/ !A >

3!/

# A >

/> #

! 1 #

!' He further submits that in so far as the reliance by the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner on the Division Bench judgment of the Bombay High Court in the matter of : % 1 & +3

5../, is concerned, the said judgment is not applicable to the facts of the present case since the petitioner therein established by making a reference to the sonology examination that the foetus suffered from several fetal anomalies including a congenital malformation. As many as 07 different anomalies were reported by the Sonologist, on examination, and the chances of the independent intact neonatal survival appeared to be less. It was under the said circumstances that the Division Bench of

18 the Bombay High Court gave precedence to the preference of the mother visàvis medical report since the child was to suffer serious physical and mental abnormalities and had to be brought up as a dependent for the rest of his life. The said circumstances do not exist in the case in hand. While referring to the judgment in the matter of 5 +6 * $ 7 8 .94 ), it is again reiterated that there were serious substantial fetal abnormalities noticed in the said case as well. Even though the pregnancy was of 32 weeks and foetal condition was assessed among the anomalies in relation to their microcephaly and lissencephaly along with mild uteroplacephaly which added the possibility of intellectual disability though not life threatening.

It was also noticed that the petitioner therein belonged to a humble background with severe financial constraints and that the additional financial resources required to meet the expenses of an infant born with such conditions were not available with them. Hence, medical termination of pregnancy was allowed in peculiar facts of the said case.

), 36 weeks pregnancy was permitted to be terminated again on the basis of the medical report, which revealed that there was danger to life of both the woman and the baby to be born, if the pregnancy was not terminated. He thus contends that reliance on the said judgment is misconceived as the judgments have to be seen on the basis of the facts brought before the Court and the said facts are not applicable or attracted in the present case. Termination of pregnancy beyond 24 weeks in all these cases has

19 been allowed only in such exceptional circumstances where the child was suffering from severe mental and physical abnormalities or where giving birth to the child was dangerous to the life of both the mother and the child. None of the said circumstances exist in the current circumstances. Hence, there is no justification for allowing termination of the pregnancy.

Learned has also taken this Court through the judgments of the this Court in +( %

*$ 8 .9=>. 4. wherein when the Medical Board of the PGIMER did not recommend termination of pregnancy, but certain directions were issued by this Court which are extracted as under: 3! #

K% . / = 8 (# ;

# "

! .

9 ! . # # 2 ) ;

20 &

2 ! . 2 # ; ! .

/ ! 0

# ! .

= = ! !' No other argument has been raised.

I have heard learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and have also gone through the documents appended along with the present petition with their able assistance. The twin issues which arise for consideration are firstly, as to whether an unmarried girl/woman or a single mother is entitled to seek termination of pregnancy when such pregnancy is a result of consensual sexual relationship and the child does not suffer from any physical, mental or psychological deformity and poses no danger to the mother as well. The second aspect is whether the petitioner should be granted permission for seeking termination of medical pregnancy under the current peculiar circumstances noticed above. For the purposes of

21 consideration of the said aspect, it is necessary to extract the relevant statutory provisions of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 and the MTP Rules of 2003 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1971 and the Rules of 2003 (as amended on 12.10.2021). The same are extracted as under: 6.*4$% ( $+ *:

#4.);

!/4%)*4$% $+ !<%)%.= .*>

0?'0

. * % ; ;% - .1 0

-+4 3B*.#

! - ./

% -+.# #%% -.

" # # - . "

" %

# # #

#%% -.

6 L

22 -.

! M" !%%$ -.#

# 6 ! M" !%%$ -. - .# # 6 ! -

. &

! - ?.

% - .

8 ?

! - . M / > A # ## (>9# ?

8 ?

23 - ). 8 ?

# K -.> L - .0 L -.; /

L - . (>9 /> A # !N -,.

% - .#

< ! -+.-.1 # # # # O N# " ! - ./ -.# " !' """ """ """

$+ (

+ !% - .( > =/ = # %

# 0 ;6 0 !

24 - . % ! .> $2

+ 6 5 !%$ / ,#% -. 8 ?

# % -.

% - % ?.

L -. % ?

& # L - . 8 ?

# P -. " #

% - %?. / ,L -. 8 ?

$ ) 6 & &

% - %?. / ,L -.

8 ?

% - %?. / ,! .>5 * ; + + % 2 %>+ 2:

- .

% - . / , #

# % -. "

L - . L -.

.L - . O6

; 0 ) # * B-+Q * B.NL -.

L -.

> !' A perusal of the same shows that the pregnancy may be terminated by a registered medical practitioner subject to the provisions contained under the Act and the rules framed thereunder after obtaining opinion from the medical practitioners/medical board. Section 3 (2) entitles termination of the pregnancy where continuance thereof involves

26 risk to the life of the pregnant woman or grave injury to her physical or mental health or that the child suffers from substantial risk of physical or mental abnormality. It further recognizes right of a woman to exercise a discretion where the pregnancy is an outcome of failure of contraceptive devices adopted or where such pregnancy is an outcome of rape or physical assault or under circumstances as elaborated in Rule 3 B of the Rules of 2003 as amended.

The Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971, was enacted to expand access of safe and legal abortion services to all women. It was perceived as an important step towards safety and well being of women. Prior to enunciation of the above said Act ̧ there were numerous hurdles that stood in the way of women securing full access to safe and legal abortions thereby pushing women to avail discreet and unsafe abortions under deficient infrastructure facilities propelled by fear of social stigma. The problems compounded for pregnancies contracted on account of exercise of sexual autonomy outside or without marriage. The fear of social reprimand and harassment compelled the women to make choices which were violative of their right to reproductive autonomy.

The law recognizes the exercise of sexual autonomy by an individual as an integral part of an inviolate right conferred under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and is embodied in her right to life and for protection of her bodily integrity.

27 proper sexual health education, safe sex education, lack of easy access to contraceptives or lack of proper advise and consultation. The lack of family and parental support further aggravated the agony and subjected the woman to seek discreet and unsafe abortions from unqualified persons and expose themselves to greater harm thereby and/or may also compel the woman to resort to seek registration of cases under sexual offences so as to claim benefit of seeking medical termination of pregnancies under the applicable statutory provisions. The Act of 1971, takes into consideration the pregnancies which are either a result of sexual assault/incest or on the basis of sexual activity between married adults.

The same is silent with respect to the pregnancies as a result of consensual sexual relationship between consenting adults, who may not intend to get married and/or enter into a long lasting relationship but are in the process of exploring and exercising their sexual autonomy. A Court of law is required to fill the gap by judicial intervention and interpretation, without legislating, till such time that the legislation makes an appropriate arrangement or takes a conscious decision for such a situation.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court interpreted the provisions of the Act of 1971 and the Rules framed theruender i.e. the Rules of 2003 in 89<+ + ' $ % ) and also noticed that marriage as a precondition to the rights of an individual visavis, the objects and purposes of the Act needs to be interpreted taking into consideration the social and societal demands. Turning a blind eye to a social reality only

28 acts as a bedrock for the illegality and subjects individuals to hardships neither contemplated nor desired by the Statute. The perception of an age old society has to evolve with the changed social context mandating readjustment of the laws. Law cannot live in the past and remain static or act as an impediment which blocks the changing social requirements and fails to advance the cause of social justice. An unmarried girl or a woman, who exercises her right to sexual autonomy, cannot be put to prejudice and be denied her consideration for seeking medical termination of pregnancy which such right is recognized for a married woman. The Court cannot be indifferent to the plight of single woman/mother's exercising a right recognized in law and to force them to live with the consequences of exercises of such right with no respite.

The statutory provisions are thus required to come to the aid of such women without doing violence to the statute as well as the statutory objectives. It could not have been the intent of law that a woman should be compelled to foist or to register a criminal case under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code or any other sexual offences which she would not resort to if the law recognises her entitlement to seek termination of pregnancy. An interpretation that would compel the people to resort to an illegality for avoiding a relief would even otherwise be not desirable either by the Statute or by a Court of law.

The right of a woman and the constitutional values emanating from the interpretation of the Act of 1971 and the Rules of 2003 were extensively gone through by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of 89<+

29 +' $ %(

)%*+ , ? + 87 + ,

. Some of the significant excerpts thereof are reproduced hereinafter below. ,,! 0 / I >!0! / # " ! O,:N

# #

!O,3N" K .4 0&73" ?$ 38?( ?$ 38?(@ $ 383$A" !) 77&7! B 387" $ "773!8 A# 8# = .9 C.<& +3

( 44 / . 5 : + 3

? )

A <4 //D 7$ #

" ! 2

" " #C / K 7 #

! ( !7 "

7 "77

#" # #

30 !7 ;

#I!K7

" "! !( "" # "

!1 !?

! " " ! !7 ,+! 5

- 43+., ;: K 7 - #

!2 !

! 2 ! , !2 0 !

# +! L I

# #

7 ,4! ? !!/ ?#- Q44. /; B*, ? 5

! G/ !/-)

!.#- Q33. ,/B*Q%6

K , !) #7 7

% !2

7 7 7 7 ! $# " ! #

!2 "

! ?

!2 " # !2" !2" ! 2

6 % %

!2 ! 2 !2

& !

,,!$ # " K 7M" K/ ( 6 ; ? 0 # # # ?# #

6# # !

32 K0 ## # !7 E"" """ """ 7

+ + ,3! 2 - .

- .!

6 ! / 7 !7O+37N

/<,

A & +3

9/< ,Q!3 5

& 5

! G/#I! %6

K B! !

! !

! ! /

33 ! # # !

# #

! I # ! ! #

! -M . +*! 16 / I - .#

7 #

6! O4*N7 O4*16/ I !A #- * 3. */ #

N !6 %+ ++

+ ! 9 ! /!G

!G #- * *.4/B** %6

34 %"

K 7+B!O!!N2

# #

! #

!M # "! 1

! 8 " !7 + ! ) / !

/ ( C / *33 % I

- #)!)F

#I! . 9 K B!

77 # - . ! # #

! $

# & !

# #

! /# - 7 7 77. #

# !

!/ &

! !

!7 +,!/ #

) / - .# 9 % ! /

80 !

! 7 E +

2 ++!(#0

!8 ? QB ! 4 8 ? QB # " -

7 !7 E"" """ """

36 +3! & # 80 80;

! #

! "

" ! 7;F

+67$ +Q!

# 6C !A

Q4* /; 3BQ# ! G 8 ! 8! R 0 - Q44. /;

QB#/ 5 0 ! G 86 # QQ / - . / ,4 1 ! C ! ! / / - **+.,/ Q:

/ ( 6 ;

""" """ """ !80 *

!80 *

37 + / *

6 / , 80 "

80 #

/ ,- . " ! 80 *

" %

;80/! 4,!80 *

# 6 ! 80 #M"

7 7 6 ! 80 *

# M" - . 7 7 6 !? 7 7 80 # / ,

38 4+! / ( 6 ;

K 72 #

! $ #

% # ! ? %

& ! #

# 6 !7 - . 44!/ ( 6 ; 80 *

7 7 #

# !7

39 4B! 80 Q:

7 7# / ( 6 ; # # 7

!7 / # *

/ ( 6 ;

! ;# ! E"" """ """ 7 67$ + @ &

G F % 7 B*! 2

% #

% !OBQN / ,- .- . 80 # ;80 #

# ;

-. L-. 6 L -. 6 ! # ;80 #

# !2

;

,? 80 ;

6 & / ,- . 80 ! C=5 8 :> 5 :A 5;; : $

% <4 == 6 ):

6 A = .

40 !(

!" 7 6

7 / ,- .

% ! " / ,- .

6 ! !

" -

80 .

" / 4# ;80

! E ! A - * :. , / +43# 8 R ! A - * 3. +/ 3Q#8/ 0! A - * :.,/+B #/ !A #- * 3. ,/,,Q

6 ! B,!

# O:+N # O:4N

# O:BN # O::N "

41 !O:3N

9 #

! C4/ & +3

< /49' & +

./9<6 $ & +

./=7 %& $ & + 3

< 94 6 & +

< /<D C49H ' & + 3

. /9< 6 $ & + 3

. /= : ; % & +3

< . ..6 & +3

< /< I +5 <

6 'N C4=G & +3

< /49 : ; % & + 3

< . .. 7 %& $ & +3

< 94 6 & +3

< /<D C44G' & +3

<=D C4<I +5 <

94' & +

<= B+!" 7 7

! 2 5 ( 9 7 % # 9 # #

!7O:QN " "!

42 (

! 80 9

6 !/ ,-,. 7 6 7#

! 7 7 # 6 ! 4H * ( ! J G$ @ % G/

B4!

80 ! ( !2 6 +6 =!

A 5 </= 5

& ! """ """ """

.5 B3!? ;

,?# # #

" ! 8 8 M"

I *

80;

# #

;

,?!

M" 7 "

=L # # L L

L - -6 .#

# .L

" = = L

= % !7 M" ;

,?#

! BQ!

;

& # # # # ! ;

9 # ! 9 6 !

44 :*! ;

,?-. "

## #

! /

- # . "

! 8 #

# & ! 5 #

! # &

! """ """ """ ! ;

,?- ."

3 "

0(/( 80 !$

80 #;80# & #

/ Q- . 0(/(

!;80

Q- . 0(/( -

80 .

45 " ;80

/ Q- . 0(/( ! /

;80

0(/(

! E"" """ """ Q*!;

,?-. !

# 9 " ;

,?-.!

;

,?-.

! Q !

!2 # -

. !/

! ! 8 # !/ & !

46 Q ! 2

,?-..# 7

7-;

,?-..#

,?-..! - # # # . ;

!$ # # O33N ( " 6

# O3QN

! 8 #

# ! ;

,?-. " #

# & #

" ! ! " & ! C<<G

2 +6 !

A 5

=4D C< 6;;: +6 !

A 5 <.D Q,! ;

,?-.#;

,?-. ;

,?-.! 5 # ;

47 #

% -.#-. -.!$

6 80 # # ;

,?#

/ ,- .- . ;

,? ;

,?!;# ;

! Q+!

& !/

& ! Q4! #

# # & #

80 80;

! 7 QB!

! ;

# #

48 #

# #

# ! Q:! S C # * *

! OQ*N

C #

# #

! # #

! C I13B A&8 "$ !,&73" 3?(7 (&68 3?(7@ *!6"8 !) !A! 8, )3?(7 )! "$ !,&73"0&73"8B&$

Q3! #

" # # # ! / " "

! / !

" ! ;

9 !

49 QQ!

! #

! &

! " #

# # #

# !$ # !

! #

**! 1$ 2% & +3

! 0 - .#

7 !OQ N

K C 1 $2% & + 3

<$ 2%GD

Q:!0

# !

! !

! " !

! 2

!7 - .

* ! #0 - .

! # I! 7

!' OQ,N

! - .

!OQ4N

51 OQ,0 #,:,N OQ40 #3 N

* ! / / - .

" 9

! ##

Q# #

% ! #

0 6 5 ! 5

& ! "

" !5 # 5

*,! %6

! 6

G > ? #!I!#

! 6 ! 7 7 / ,-+.-. 80 !

7 7

! #

7 7

" ! #

! $ #

! #

& ! 5 # 7 / 7 ! #

! 5 # 80 # Q:

*+!/ /- .

# # ! #

*4!)

! )

OQBN - .

# # # "

! & +3

< 9

K OQB0 # +3N OQ:0 # Q3N 7++ !

! #

*B!

! ? & #

# # % !

*:! 5

( 8 - .#

% &

+% 6

J /

% % #

# ! # !6

& #

0 C!!5

K +!

! #

! !

*3!

! # & !5 #

! #

% &

! 7 %

*Q!

% !

# %

% ! ) 9

*! #

% % % !

56 !

! 1

5 +1 4.

/ 9 !/

! )

! ) 6 & 7 %+, <

=< %6

$ M" 0 / !

K 73!!!!2

# # & # # " #

" !(

# #

" %! M

57 6

,! 0 - . -)! )! F!

# I!. 9 # # K Q3! 0

! ) ! #

! #

9 !C

! " ! F

!!!!

! 2 # !# # "

" !!!) "

! ?

58 #

xxx xxx xxx

6 / ,- .- . 80 ;

,? %

6# "

- . ;

,?! ;

,?# #

+ ! + & & & ! 0 - %

7 "7#

# #

!' It is evident from a perusal of the same that rule 3 B provides for abortion within a period of 24 weeks, due to change of material (including marital) circumstances and that the said provision has to be read to extend also to an unmarried woman and that

59 disallowing the same access to an unmarried woman/girl under Rule 3 B, would be discriminatory to her and she too deserves the reproductive autonomy and right of her choice whether or not to bear a child. The said provisions are, however, not a means to dilute the provisions of Pre Conception and PreNatal Diagnostic Techniques Act, 1994. Hence, I am of the view that law needs no further elaboration. An unmarried girl/a single mother cannot be made to suffer social, physical, psychological and financial trauma merely for having exercised her rightful autonomy.

Changed circumstances/material alterations as available to a married woman under Rule 3 B of the Rules of 2003, as amended, would also subsist in favour of an unmarried consenting adult and that when a consensual sexual relationship between adult parts away or is mutually closed, the same would have certain callings equivalent to the scenario contemplated by the Legislature akin to divorce/widowhood for the purpose of seeking medical termination of pregnancy.

A changed scenario, in terms of requirement has to presume a legal recognition of a relationship with her partner at par with a spousal relationship stipulated under Rule 3 B of the Rules of 2003 and that on existence of such circumstances which permit a married woman to seek termination of pregnancy, the Court may exercise its power to grant approval to medical termination of pregnancy even in case of an unmarried girl.

Further, during the course of hearing, a question was also posed to the petitioner herein as to whether she would like to name or disclose the identity of the person who is the father of the child,

60 however, she expressed her unwillingness to disclose the name. Her right of privacy and dignity empowers her to make a choice as to whether she would like to disclose the name of the partner or not and that the law cannot compel a woman to make public the name of the person who is the father of the foetus and/or the child. Having recognized the right of the petitioner to seek medical termination, this Court now proceeds on the factual aspects of the case and to determine as to whether such permission needs to be granted in the facts of the present case.

I have gone through the judgments that have been cited by the petitioner where pregnancy has been permitted to be terminated after expiry of 24 weeks, however, in all the said judgments cited by the senior counsel for the petitioner, the child/pregnancy posed grave risk to the lives of mother as well as the child or the child suffered from serious physical and mental abnormalities. While it is recognized that the foetus in the present case is an unwanted pregnancy and the possible social stigmatic fall out for the petitioner cannot be entirely ruled out, however, the legislature has prescribed the time frame within which such termination may be permitted, after due consideration of the medical condition and the status of the foetus.

It is also seen that while the law may confer a right to be exercised by the mother for seeking a termination of pregnancy on occurrence of the circumstances stipulated thereunder, the above said right is recognised by law till such time that the pregnancy completes 24 weeks.

61 in accordance with the procedure established by law. Hence, when such a right is subject to certain procedural restrictions and on occurrence of an event (i.e. the pregnancy beyond 24 weeks), an individual cannot claim an unbridled right yet in her favour and to claim that notwithstanding the mandate of the Act of 1971 and the Rules of 2003, yet, she is entitled to seek medical termination. The legislative wisdom of confining the time line is not a subject matter of challenge and is also not confronted by any medical jurisprudence to the contrary. Invariably, in the process of carrying out a termination of the pregnancy, post expiry of 24 weeks, when a child is healthy and is grown, the implications and consequences have been segregated and consciously confined by the Legislature. The law leaves it to the discretion of the constitutional Courts, to exercise on case to case basis, as to whether such circumstances exist as would necessitate issuance of directions for termination of pregnancy. Hence, the Court is required to take into consideration the admissible evidence.

Even though the Medical Board cannot substitute a decision of a person to exercise his right, however, once it is held that such right is circumscribed by the legal provisions, the opinion of the expert Medical Board of an Institution of Eminence, would not ordinarily be disregarded.

It is also noticed herein that it is not a case where delay has occasioned on account of delay in adjudication, rather, the petitioner herself approached this Court after expiry of the statutory period. The present writ petition was listed for the first time before this Court on

62 29.02.2024 and as per the ultrasound report of 23.02.2024, she was pregnant by 24 weeks and 06 days i.e. 25 weeks. Hence, she was pregnant by 26 weeks when she approached the High Court. Further, the report of the Medical Board of PGIMER, even though notices that the patient is medically and physically fit to undergo a procedure and expressed a suicidal ideation of the petitioner and recommends psychological assessments and support, also states it to be a case of pre term delivery and not a medical termination as ordinarily understood.

For carrying out a termination in such circumstances, the doctors are required to carry out a feticide as per which the heartbeat of the child have to be forcibly stopped, failing which the survival rates of the pre mature delivered child would be more than 65%, having numerous neurodevelopmental handicaps and increasing the morbidity of such child. It seemingly is on account of the aforesaid circumstances and to avoid committing of a feticide that the legislature decided a 'cut off' for pregnancy period before any such right/authority ought to be exercised. While pleading her circumstances, the petitioner is seeking a direction from this Court to authorize the doctors to carry out a feticide failing which it would be an instance of a preterm delivery which is likely to add to the hardships of the child himself.

The Court cannot be oblivious to the possibility of a preterm delivery and the consequences which its order may have to a child or to assume a role where it takes upon itself to decide that the child ought not be allowed to be born alive.

63 have suffered a grave physical or mental harm or the child was likely to be born with serious physical, mental or psychological deformities, however, a mental shock or stigma as a result of a pregnancy not approved, but on account of a consensual relationship, cannot at this juncture be seen as an event which would have an irreversible mental hazard. Exercise of a right of sexual autonomy also at times comes along with the responsibility to discharge duties that arise on exercise of such an option. A person may be called upon to live with the consequences of the option exercised, when such consequences cannot be erased and are required to coexist. The desirability of a circumstance cannot outweigh the reality of the circumstance.

The report of the Medical Board of the PGIMER having been perused, the same refers to the eventuality of a preterm delivery with a survival rate of 60 to 65% along with significant morbidity and neurodevelopmental handicaps. However, the said aspect may be specifically determined, before proceeding further, yet again. Taking into consideration the peculiar circumstances of this case, it is deemed appropriate to issue following directions for balancing the equities and to prevent continued incarceration, stigma and embarrassment to the petitioner: (i) The petitioner shall appear before the Medical Board of the Rajindra Hospital, Patiala which such Board will carry out a redetermination as to whether the termination of the pregnancy can be carried out, without a feticide, and shall explain the said consequences to the petitioner, including

64 the enhanced risk to which the petitioner might be exposed in the event of being subjected to such medical termination of pregnancy.

In the event, the Medical Board is of the opinion that the medical termination of the pregnancy would not be possible and it would rather lead to a preterm delivery or would call upon the Medical Board to carry out a feticide, the procedure shall not be carried out any further.

(ii) The State shall take all appropriate steps to ensure an institutional delivery of the child of the petitioner along with necessary medical facilities without payment of any fee, charges or expenses of any nature whatsoever, and shall ensure that delivery takes place in a safe environment; (iii) The privacy of the petitioner shall be maintained at all stages and her identity be not divulged during the course of hospitalization, treatment, delivery or thereafter; (iv) The petitioner may be called upon to exercise an option of the institutional facility where she intends to get the treatment and delivery and also as to whether she intends to keep the child and to bring up the said child.

65 for custody of the said child to the Child Welfare Committee.

(vi) The above said Child Welfare Committee shall thereafter take care of all the needs and facilities of the child; and (vii) The petitioner shall thereafter have no objection to the said child being given in adoption by the State agencies to the willing parents/persons in accordance with law. The Child would be deemed to be free for being given in adoption. The aforesaid directions are without prejudice to any other right and entitlement of the petitioner under the applicable policy/guidelines for financial assistance and rehabilitation. The present petition is disposed of accordingly. A copy of the order be given to the learned counsel for the respective parties under the signatures of the Bench Secretary. )!.:

00>

!)@ )!$!)

2 = KF=1 2 KF=1