Telangana High Court Refuses Late-Term Foetus Termination, Emphasises Rights Balance

Hyderabad: Justice N V Shravan Kumar of the Telangana High Court refused to permit the medical termination of a 28-30-week old feotus. The judge said that it was important to balance the rights of the mother and of the foetus. The judge was dealing with a writ plea filed by the mother of a 15-year-old child carrying the foetus as a consequence of rape. She moved the High Court complaining that the Nalgonda Government Hospital (NGH) personnel were duty-bound and had failed to counsel the victim. Her ante-natal ultrasound report would show that the foetus was 28-30 weeks old. The petitioner pointed out that the doctors failed in their duty to inform the petitioner of the provisions of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act and the steps to be taken. Petitioner's counsel also pointed out to the verdict of the apex court declaring the rights of women to make reproductive choices as being central to human dignity. He said that according to the ruling of the apex court the right of a woman to terminate her pregnancy even when the foetus is alive, the hospital must provide facilities to save the foetus and ensure the child is given in proper adoption. The judge said that the judgments do not come in for straitjacket applications. He pointed out that in the present case, there were six medical opinions against the termination of pregnancy. The right to life issue, raised in the writ petition, he pointed out, dealt not only with the life of the mother but also of the child. He also referred to Rule 3A (i) of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy (Amendment) Rules, 2021, “which prescribes allowing or denying termination of pregnancy beyond twenty-four weeks of the gestation period and further under Sub-Section 2(b) of the said Rules only after due consideration and ensuring that the procedure would be safe for the woman at that gestation age and whether the foetal malformation has a substantial risk of it being incompatible with life or if the child is born it may suffer from such physical or mental abnormalities to be seriously handicapped.” He observed, “ln the case on hand, as per the report of the medical board there is no finding/observation that there is a risk to the life of the victim if pregnancy is continued. In the report, it is opined that the victim is pregnant at 28-30 weeks of gestational period with an estimated foetal weight is about 1.37 kg, with a salvageable foetus. But the report also suggests that the termination of pregnancy is not advisable at this junction because there will be a chance of survival of the baby with certain abnormalities and in view of such untoward effects on the baby the termination is not advisable to avoid the birth of the disabled baby who will become a burden to the single parent and society, which means that if the pregnancy is terminated and if a baby is born with abnormalities, the victim would be compelled to suffer throughout life.” Justice Kumar recorded that any orders against the medical advice/opinion given by the medical board will be against the interest of the victim and the foetus/prospective child and refused to exercise the extraordinary jurisdiction of the court for directing the pregnancy of the victim to be terminated which is in an advanced stage at 28-30 weeks of the gestational period as per the medical report. The judge however directed the NGH medical superintendent, to get the victim medically examined every month or so and provide medical facilities to the victim required for carrying on pregnancy its full term.

Rooftop Hoarding Removal Applicable Applies 15 Feet Above Ground

Justice S. Nanda of the Telangana High Court observed that removal of rooftop hoardings would apply only where such hoardings are raised 15 feet from the ground level. The judge was dealing with a batch of writ pleas challenging a final notice issued by the chief executive officer (CEO) of the Secunderabad Cantonment Board (SCB) directing the removal of rooftop hoardings. The petitioner contended that no showcause notice was issued and that the authorities directly issued the final notice. This action of requiring the petitioner to remove the hoardings without a showcause notice and given no opportunity of being heard, the petitioner said, was in violation of the principles of natural justice. It was further contended that the rooftop hoardings have been there for nearly 20 years and that the respondents had violated the provisions of the Cantonment Act. The SCB averred that it has issued a public notice by way of a showcause notice and the direction was to ensure public safety. It was also stated that the erection of the rooftop hoardings was without sanction from the SCB. The judge disposing of the pleas directed the SCB to take necessary action as per provisions of the law

Writ for RERA Appellate Tribunal.

A two-judge bench of the Telangana High Court on Tuesday took on file a writ petition complaining the non-constitution of the regular appellate tribunal under the Real Estate Regulation and Development Act 2016. The bench comprising Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice J. Anil Kumar was dealing with a writ plae field by Boyenepally Sri Jayavardhan challenging an order passed by the state Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA). The petitioner not only challenged the order of the regulatory authority but would contended the non-constitution of the tribunal under the statute deprived the petitioner of statutory remedy. Senior counsel P. Venu Gopal argued that the state government was bound to constitute a committee as prescribed under the Act.

TSPSC Group – I selection criteria challenged.

A two-judge bench of the Telangana High Court admitted a batch of writ pleas questioning the criteria for selection to Group-I services. The bench took on file a bunch of writ pleas challenging Para 7 of Telangana Public Employment Organisation of Local Cadres and Regulation of Direct Recruitment Order 2018, as the criteria for consideration of local candidates. The bench comprising Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice J. Anil Kumar was hearing a batch of 16 writ pleas seeking to consider the case of the petitioners for Group I services in terms of the notification issued on April 26, 2022, without insisting on the four consecutive academic years of study preceding as the minimum educational qualification under Para 7 of the Presidential Order for consideration of a candidate as a local. It was brought to the notice of the court that the TS Public Service Commission (TSPSC) had not released the rescheduled dates of the Group-I examination which was earlier postponed. The bench considering the submissions adjourned the batch for the state to file its counter.