Home   |   About us   |   Contact us   |   Request Callback  


This Page To:

MAMTA VERMA V/S UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS, decided on Wednesday, August 9, 2017.
[ In the Supreme Court of India, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 627 of 2017. ] 09/08/2017
Advocate(s) : Sneha Mukherjee Satya Mitra. Ranjit Kumar, Ld. SG, Sadhana Sandhu G.S. Makker, Nishant R. Katneshwarkar, Deepa Kulkarni.
Judgment Full Text : Existing LawyerServices Members, kindly login above.

Non Members, Enter your email address:- and , to request this judgment.

Alternatively, you may send a request by email to info@lawyerservices.in for the Full Text of this Judgment (chargeable).

LawyerServices Facebook Page

Judgments that may be related:-

  The Research Foundation for Science Technology & Natural Resource Policy Versus Union of India & Others,   05/07/2017.  

  Mamta Sahu Versus Jayendra Sahu,   03/05/2017.  

  Mamta Sharma & Another Versus State of Chhattisgarh Through the Secretary, Chhattisgarh & Others,   31/03/2017.  

  Narmada Bachao Andolan Versus Union of India & Others,   08/02/2017.  

  Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education & Research (P.G.I.) & Others Versus Mamta Rani @ Babli & Others,   24/01/2017.  

  Bhim Singh & Others Versus Govt of NCT of Delhi & Others,   20/12/2016.  

  Oriental Insurance Company Limited Versus Krishna Kumari & Others,   09/12/2016.  

  Animal Welfare Board of India Versus People For Elimination of Stray Troubles & Others,   04/10/2016.  

  Rupali Gupta Versus Rajat Gupta,   05/09/2016.  

  Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. & Others Versus Pushpa & Others,   02/09/2016.  

  State of H.P. Versus Lajja Devi,   12/07/2016.  

  Sarita Devi & Others Versus Ashok Kumar Nagar & Others,   17/06/2016.  

  Mohit Versus State of Maharashtra, thru its Secretary, Ministry of Irrigation & Water Conservation & Others,   16/04/2016.  

  Dwarika Prasad Patel & Others Versus State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary, Department of Health & Family Welfare, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur & Others,   13/01/2016.  

  Oriental Insurance Company Limited Versus Aman Mittal & Others ,   08/01/2016.  

  Poonam Versus State of U.P. & Others,   29/10/2015.  

  Vandana Gupta & Others Versus Kuwait Airways Ltd. & Others,   14/08/2015.  

  Goverdhan Versus State of M.P.,   15/07/2015.  

  Dr. Prafulla Ranjan & Others Versus Pension Fund Regulatory & Development Authority, Through Its Chairman, New Delhi & Others,   29/06/2015.  

  Mamta Ben Versus Union of India & Others,   06/05/2015.  

  Sadanand Properties Pvt. Ltd. & Others Versus Punjab National Bank & Others,   06/02/2015.  

  Tara Chand Sharma Versus Union of India, Through Secretary, Ministry of Human Resource & Development, Govt. of India, New Delhi & Others,   20/01/2015.  

  Odisha Public Service Commission Versus Priyambada Das & Others,   16/01/2015.  

  Voluntary Health Asst. of Punjab Versus Union of India & Others,   13/01/2015.  

  P. Bineesh & Others Versus Kerala Public Service Commission, represented by The Secretary Kerala Public Service Commision & Others,   17/11/2014.  

  Rohit Singhal Versus State of M.P. through Station House Officer & Another,   10/11/2014.  

  Syed Meeran & Another Versus Syed Ismail & Another,   05/11/2014.  

  Voluntary Health Ass. of Punjab Versus Union of India & Others,   16/09/2014.  

  Keshav Kumar Versus State,   05/09/2014.  

  Dr. R.N. Virmani & Others Versus University of Delhi & Others,   30/04/2014.  

  Ranjan Kumar Versus State of Bihar & Others,   16/04/2014.  

  Bablu Sah Versus The State of Bihar,   02/04/2014.  

  B.B. Mohanty, New Delhi Versus Union of India Through its Secretary, New Delhi,   31/03/2014.  

  Constable Sandeep, Delhi Versus Govt. of NCTD through the Commissioner of Police (DAP), New Delhi & Others,   25/03/2014.  

  Mamta & Others Versus Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. & Others,   25/03/2014.  

  Ravi Dutta & Others Versus Kiran Dutta & Others,   11/02/2014.  

  Ram Kumar Versus State,   31/01/2014.  

  Purnima Thapa & Another Versus Mamta Kalra & Others,   20/01/2014.  

  Maxx Moblink Pvt. Ltd. Versus Pickle Advertisement Pvt. Ltd.,   20/01/2014.  

  Smt. Uttara Praveen Thool Versus Praveen,   06/01/2014.  

  N. Surender Rao & Others Versus B. Swamy & Another,   05/12/2013.  

  Union of India & Another Versus Ashok Kumar Aggarwal,   22/11/2013.  

  State of Rajasthan Versus Ucchab Lal Chhanwal,   22/10/2013.  

  Transair & Others Versus M/s. Kuwait Airways & Others,   21/10/2013.  

  The Managing Committee of Shiksha Bharati Senior Secondary Public School & Others Versus Director of Education & Others,   03/09/2013.  

  Anita Ghosh & Another Versus Shri Ram College of Commerce & Others,   23/08/2013.  

  R.N. Tewari versus State of Uttaranchal & Another,   01/08/2013.  

  Hakam Singh Versus Principal Judge & Others,   29/07/2013.  

  Ram Tej Verma & Another Versus State of Uttarakhand,   19/07/2013.  

  Union of India Versus Vimal Bhai & Others,   16/07/2013.  

#LawyerServices #bestlegalsoftware #legalsoftware #judgment #caselaw

    Petitioner - Mamta Verma aged 26 years has approached this Court under Article 32 of the Constitution of India seeking directions to the respondents to allow her to undergo medical termination of her pregnancy. She apprehended danger to her life having discovered that her fetus was diagnosed with Anencephaly a defect that leaves foetal skull bones unformed and is both untreatable and certain to cause the infant's death during or shortly after birth. This condition is also known to endanger the mother's life.2. By order dated 04.08.2017 while issuing notice to the respondents this Court gave a direction for examination of the petitioner by a Medical Board consisting of the following Doctors of Sir J.J. Group of Hospitals Mumbai :1. HOD Gynecology2. HOD Neurology3. Dr. Anirudha Badade MD DMRD4. Dr. Deepak Ugra MD (PAED)3. It is mentioned in the report dated 08.08.2017 received from the Dean Grant Govt. Medical College & Sir J.J. Group of Hospital Mumbai that Dr. Anirudha Badade MD DMRD and Dr. Deepak Ugra MD (PAED) are no more associated with Sir J.J. Group of Hospitals Mumbai. Hence HOD Padiatric and HOD Radiology were included in Medical Board in their place and the following members of the said hospital were present in the Board :1) Dr. Ashok Anand Professor & HOD Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology2) Dr. Kamlesh Jagyashi Professor & HOD Department of Neurology3) Dr. N.R. Sutay Professor & Head Department of Pediatric4) Dr. Shilpa Domkundwar Professor & Head Department of Radiology4. The aforesaid Medical Board has examined the petitioner and stated that as on 08.08.2017 she was into her 25th week and 1 day of pregnancy. The said Board has further opined as follows :Patient wants pregnancy to be terminated as the fetus is not likely to survive. It is causing immense mental agony to her.After going through the Ultrasonography reports Committee is of opinion that there is no point to continue the pregnancy as fetus has ANENCEPHALY which is non-compatible with life and continuation of pregnancy shall pose severe mental injury to her.5. We have been informed that the fetus is without a skull and would therefore not be in a position to survive. It is also submitted that the petitioner understands that her fetus is abnormal and the risk of fetal mortality is high. She also has the support of her husband in her decision making.6. Upon evaluation of the petitioner the aforesaid Medical Board has concluded that her current pregnancy is of 25 weeks and 1 day. The condition of the fetus is not compatible with life. The medical evidence clearly suggests that there is no point in allowing the pregnancy to run its full course since the fetus would not be able to survive outside the uterus without a skull.7. Importantly it is reported that the continuation of pregnancy can pose severe mental injury to the petitioner and no additional risk to the petitioner's life is involved if she is allowed to undergo termination of her pregnancy.8. In the circumstances we consider it appropriate in the interests of justice and particularly to permit the petitioner to undergo medical termination of her pregnancy under the provisions of Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act 1971. Mr. Ranjit Kumar learned Solicitor General appearing for the respondents has not opposed the petitioner's prayer on any ground legal or medical. We order accordingly.9. The termination of pregnancy of the petitioner will be performed by the Doctors of the hospital where she has undergone medical check-up. Further termination of her pregnancy would be supervised by the above stated Medical Board who shall maintain complete record of the procedure which is to be performed on the petitioner for termination of her pregnancy.10. With the aforesaid directions the instant writ petition is allowed in terms of prayer (a) seeking direction to the respondents to allow the petitioner to undergo medical termination of her pregnancy.