Delhi High Court
Amit Sahni vs Union Of India & Ors on 9 December, 2019
$~22
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 09.12.2019
+ W.P.(CRL) 1612/2019
AMIT SAHNI ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Inderjeet Sidhu with Mr. Anshul
Bajaj, Ms. Sonali Tiwary &
Mr. Jasman Singh Sethi, Advs.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Kapil Kumar Nim, Adv. for
R-1/UOI.
Mr. Vinod Diwakar, CGSC with
Mr. Abhishek Bhati & Mr. Vishal
Kumar Singh, Advs. for R-1 & 2.
Ms. Amrita Prakash with Mr. Hari
Shankar Sharma & Mr. Kushal
Agrawal, Advs. for R-3/NCW.
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.HARI SHANKAR
D.N. PATEL, CHIEF JUSTICE (Oral)
1. This Public Interest Litigation has been preferred with the following
prayers:-
"i) To direct the Respondent No.1 and 2 to apprise this Hon'ble
Court as to when the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act,
1971 would be amended in terms of proposed draft amendment
[Medical Termination of Pregnancy (amendment) Bill 2014],
by increasing the prescribed length of pregnancy from a period
of "Twenty Weeks" to "Twenty Four" Weeks.
ii) To pass necessary recommendations to the Respondent No.1
and 2 to replace the length of pregnancy as prescribed in
section 3 (2) (b) of MTP Act, 1971 from a period of "Twenty
Weeks" to "Twenty Four/Twenty Six" Weeks by way of
bringing appropriate amendment.
iii) To hold that the right to abort the pregnancy is a
fundamental right of the woman's body sovereignty and each
woman has the sole right to make decision about her body in
the context of carrying such pregnancy or to terminate the
same, subject to checks as provided under the MTP Act or
further checks, which may be provided.
iv) To hold that unmarried woman or widow are equally
entitled to terminate the pregnancy under MTP Act, 1971.
v) To pass appropriate directions to deal with the cases
pertaining to termination of pregnancy where anomaly is
detected after 16 weeks on fast track basis under MTP Rules in
order to ensure that woman must not suffer due to
administrative delay in taking decision or giving consent for
termination of pregnancy.
vi) To direct the respondent to spread awareness to sensitize
the people about abnormalities of fetus and necessity to go for
regular check-ups and advanced scans.
vii) Or pass any other or further order, which this Hon'ble
Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances
of the case."
2. The arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner are that
this petition has been preferred for immediate amendment in the Medical
Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act,
1971"), especially, for increasing the prescribed length of termination of
pregnancy from the period of "Twenty Weeks" to "Twenty Four Weeks".
Learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that this amendment
has been kept pending since several months and the same may be
immediately carried out by the respondents. It is also submitted by the
learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner may be informed about the
details of the amendment in advance so that they can look into the matter so
far as amendment is concerned.
3. It is not the function of this Court to frame a time limit within which
the respondents are required to amend the Act, 1971 nor this Court can ask
what amendment the respondents are considering or what amendment they
are contemplating to bring into force. It is all left at the wisdom of the
Parliament.
4. Having heard learned counsels for both the sides and looking to the
facts and circumstances of the case, we see no reason to issue any writ, order
or direction upon respondents to amend the Medical Termination of
Pregnancy Act, 1971 within a specific time limit. Nonetheless, looking to
the public need and exigencies, action will be taken by the respondents as
early as possible and practicable.
5. With these observations, this writ petition is hereby disposed of.
CHIEF JUSTICE
C.HARI SHANKAR, J
DECEMBER 09, 2019
kks
