Pregnancy termination: Pro-life or pro-choice? Split in Supreme Court bench of 2 women judges | India News

[ad_1]

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court, which has traditionally been pro-life, was split Wednesday over choosing between stopping the heart of an over 26-week-old healthy fetus and the choice of its carrier, a married woman, to terminate the pregnancy which is impermissible under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy (MTP) Act.
A bench of Justices Hima Kohli and B V Nagarathna, which on Monday had unanimously agreed to permit termination of the pregnancy, reconvened on Wednesday after ASG Aishwarya Bhati conveyed an email from an AIIMS professor, a member of the board constituted at the court’s instance, seeking clarity on whether the doctors were to stop the heart of the viable fetus, or deliver the premature child who would grow up with multiple health complications.
The woman, who had petitioned the SC to allow termination of her pregnancy as it was impermissible because of the 24-week rule under the MTP Act, remained firm before the bench that she did not want to continue with her pregnancy citing her own ill-health, inability to take care of her two children and the financial situation at her home.
Earlier, PIL had sought transfer of Shahi Idgah land to Hindus
The judges had reserved their verdict on the plea at the previous hearing.
In May, the HC took over the cases that were being heard in a Mathura court. The mosque committee of the Shahi Idgah Masjid thereafter filed a special leave petition challenging this order in the SC.
On July 21, the apex court said it would be better if the Sri Krishna Janmabhoomi-Shahi Idgah mosque dispute is adjudicated by the high court, which should also decide the preliminary objection to the maintainability of the suit.
It said the “multiplicity and prolongation of litigation in such cases could create disquiet one way or the other, as history has shown”.
In his plea, Maheshwari had asked for the land to be handed over to the Hindu side for a shrine to be built under the supervision of a trust.
As in the Shringar Gauri case centering on the Gyanvapi mosque site, the PIL also sought a court-monitored ground penetrating radar (GPR) excavation by the Archaeological Survey of India of the structure allegedly built at Krishna’s “janmasthan”.



[ad_2]

Source link

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *