This research paper explores the legal and ethical issues in the case of X v. Union of India and Anr. A 27-year-old woman seeks legal permission for a medical termination of her pregnancy. The paper examines the case's background, the Medical Termination of Pregnancy (MTP) Act, the Supreme Court's jurisdiction, and the legal, ethical, and medical aspects involved. It concludes with recommendations for legal professionals, healthcare providers, and policymakers.
A 27-year-old married woman discovered her pregnancy at around 24 weeks due to lactational amenorrhea, where breastfeeding leads to the absence of menstruation. Facing legal restrictions under the MTP Act, she sought termination. A Medical Board from AIIMS advised against it due to the foetus's viability and potential complications. The case moved to a two-judge Bench with a split verdict, leading to a referral to a three-judge Bench for further examination. The updated reports from AIIMS showed no foetal abnormalities, suggesting revised medication to manage the woman's postpartum psychosis.
The MTP Act sets conditions for terminating pregnancies based on gestational age and other factors. For up to 20 weeks, one Registered Medical Practitioner (RMP) can authorize termination if it endangers the woman's life or mental/physical health or if the child would have severe abnormalities. For 20-24 weeks, two RMPs' opinions are required for specific categories, like survivors of sexual assault or minors. Immediate termination is allowed to save the woman's life. A Medical Board can permit or deny termination for substantial foetal abnormalities.
The Supreme Court's jurisdiction involves finality of judgments, but exceptions exist for unserved notices. Article 142 of the Indian Constitution allows the Court to do complete justice, adjusting legal strictness based on unique case facts. This case, involving critical medical decisions, saw new information post-judgment, prompting the Court to invoke Article 142 to ensure justice.
This research paper explores the legal and ethical issues in the case of X v. Union of India and Anr. A 27-year-old woman seeks legal permission for a medical termination of her pregnancy. The paper examines the case's background, the Medical Termination of Pregnancy (MTP) Act, the Supreme Court's jurisdiction, and the legal, ethical, and medical aspects involved. It concludes with recommendations for legal professionals, healthcare providers, and policymakers.
A 27-year-old married woman discovered her pregnancy at around 24 weeks due to lactational amenorrhea, where breastfeeding leads to the absence of menstruation. Facing legal restrictions under the MTP Act, she sought termination. A Medical Board from AIIMS advised against it due to the foetus's viability and potential complications. The case moved to a two-judge Bench with a split verdict, leading to a referral to a three-judge Bench for further examination. The updated reports from AIIMS showed no foetal abnormalities, suggesting revised medication to manage the woman's postpartum psychosis.
The MTP Act sets conditions for terminating pregnancies based on gestational age and other factors. For up to 20 weeks, one Registered Medical Practitioner (RMP) can authorize termination if it endangers the woman's life or mental/physical health or if the child would have severe abnormalities. For 20-24 weeks, two RMPs' opinions are required for specific categories, like survivors of sexual assault or minors. Immediate termination is allowed to save the woman's life. A Medical Board can permit or deny termination for substantial foetal abnormalities.
The Supreme Court's jurisdiction involves finality of judgments, but exceptions exist for unserved notices. Article 142 of the Indian Constitution allows the Court to do complete justice, adjusting legal strictness based on unique case facts. This case, involving critical medical decisions, saw new information post-judgment, prompting the Court to invoke Article 142 to ensure justice.
The Supreme Court noted the pregnancy exceeded the 24-week statutory limit, and no significant foetal abnormalities or immediate threats to the woman's life were identified. Therefore, legal conditions for termination weren't met. The Court emphasized preserving the law's integrity and justice principles, directing AIIMS to handle the delivery with expenses covered by the Union Government and offering adoption assistance. The application for recall of the previous order was approved, resolving the petition with adherence to legal and ethical standards.
Leave a comment