The Supreme Court said on Friday that permanent medical boards in states could evaluate requests for termination of problematic pregnancies beyond the legally permissible permissible twenty weeks, ensuring that crucial time was not lost in approaching courts. The Court suggested the Centre could discuss with all concerned and said in the absence of a legal framework to deal with abortion requests of an emergency nature, the Court of late was witnessing a spurt in petitions from women and rape survivors seeking permission to terminate unwanted pregnancies. Solicitor General Ranjit Kumar assured the Court that he would convey the suggestion to the Centre without delay. In some cases, the Supreme Court was unable to grant relief to women as by the time they approached the Court, it was too late and risky for them to undergo abortion. In May, 2017, the Court turned down the plea of a 35-year-old destitute HIV-positive rape survivor form Patna to abort her 26-week pregnancy as doctors felt the risks were unacceptable. The Supreme Court dealt with two cases on 28th July, 2017 (Friday), the other one being Mumbai where it gave the go-ahead for termination of pregnancy. In the last one year, the Court has been forced to deal with seven such requests from distressed women on grounds such as the foetus being terminally ill or deformed or in some cases, pregnancy was caused by sexual assault.
There remains a strong possibility that many are unable to seek legal redress and medical boards will provide improved options. Finding the solicitor general present in the courtroom, Justice Khehar said, "Such matters are coming to court often these days and we cannot be dealing with them using powers conferred on the Supreme Court under Articles. 141 and 142 of the Constitution of India. Time is of essence in these cases. The pregnant woman's health and foetus needs prompt medical examination".
Ten-year-old denied permission to abort: The Supreme Court reluctantly refused permission on 28th July, 2017 (Friday) to a ten-year-old rape survivor to abort after a medical board said termination of pregnancy would prove grave risk to her and the 32-week-old foetus. "The medical board opines that terminating the pregnancy posed grave risk to the life of the girl child and the seven and half month old foetus, which is well formed", said a Bench of Chief Justice J.S. Khehar and Justice D.Y. Chandrachud before rejecting a pro-bono petition by two advocates. The discomfiture of the Bench was palpable in being forced to reject the plea for termination of pregnancy that had been criminally thrust upon a child, at whose age others would be studying in Class. 4.
The Bench reluctantly preferred to protect the core fundamental right - the right to life of the girl child and the well formed 32-week foetus - and ordered the Chandigarh administration to provide adequate medical care to the girl. If the medical opinion forced the hands of the Supreme Court in refusing permission to the 10-year-old girl to terminate an unwanted pregnancy and create a situation unprecedented in the annals of judicial history, TV journalist Anchal Anand summed up the courage to do what no journalist ever did in the Supreme Court - address the Court on the issue.
Given the sensitivity of the case, the Court did not question her locus standi. She voiced motherly concern for the girl child who would be going through labour pain at an age when her organs are not developed to endure child birth. She suggested constant supervision of her by a gynaecologist and, if required, a C-section for delivery to save the girl child from the labour pain which could "prove fatal".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No comments:
Post a Comment