The judge emphasised that compelling a woman to carry an unwanted pregnancy would violate her dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution, and that no express or implied consent of the husband was required under the Act.
Hyderabad: Justice E.V. Venugopal of the Telangana High Court quashed an FIR registered against a woman and her parents, who were accused of facilitating termination of pregnancy without the husband's consent. The judge was dealing with a criminal petition filed by Amtul Vakil Sidra and others seeking quashing of the FIR, alleging that the complainant-husband initiated proceedings belatedly as a counterblast to an earlier complaint filed by the wife.
The judge noted that although the husband claimed to have learned about the abortion in May 2023, he lodged the complaint only in January 2024, and the FIR was registered in July 2024, reflecting an unexplained delay of nearly seven months. While assessing the material on record, the judge observed that the couple was living together at the relevant time, making it improbable that the husband was unaware of the pregnancy. Counsel appearing for the petitioners, Mohd. Adnan, submitted that the wife exercised her statutory right under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, especially since the conception occurred due to contraceptive failure, and that the pregnancy at four weeks was medically and legally terminable. Relying on Supreme Court rulings, the judge reiterated that a woman was the ultimate decision-maker regarding continuation or termination of pregnancy, irrespective of her marital status.
The judge emphasised that compelling a woman to carry an unwanted pregnancy would violate her dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution, and that no express or implied consent of the husband was required under the Act. Taking note of multiple interconnected litigations between the parties and the possibility of proceedings being driven by personal vengeance, the judge held that the FIR did not prima facie disclose any cognisable offence and was therefore liable to be quashed. Allowing the criminal petition, the judge set aside all proceedings.
Court not to open decade-old promotion case
A two-judge panel of the Telangana High Court declined to reopen a decade-old promotion process, dismissing a writ plea seeking elevation to a chargeman post on the basis of a 2011 selection panel. The panel comprising Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice G.M. Mohiuddin was hearing a writ plea filed by M. Venkateswarlu. The petitioner challenged the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Hyderabad, which refused his claim for promotion after the death of the candidate originally promoted to the post. The petitioner contended that he stood second in merit and that the promoted candidate, K. Jayapaul, was allegedly not qualified when appointed. He argued that upon Jayapaul’s death in 2017, the promotional vacancy should have been granted to him as the next candidate in the panel.
The Union of India opposed the writ plea contending that the selection process concluded in 2011 and the panel remained valid for one year. It was contended that the promoted candidate’s eligibility was verified by the tribunal, which vacated an earlier interim stay after examining his original degree certificate. The respondents argued that once a selected candidate joins duty, a later vacancy does not revive an expired panel or create any enforceable right. Agreeing with the respondents, the panel observed that no right survives to candidates on a lapsed panel, and the petitioner cannot seek promotion more than a decade later merely on account of the incumbent’s death. The panel accordingly dismissed the writ plea.
HC clears jobs for two locals in PV varsity
Justice Nagesh Bheemapaka of the Telangana High Court directed the P.V. Narasimha Rao Telangana Veterinary University to appoint two local candidates as assistant professors, holding that the recruitment process contravened the terms of the original notification by issuing a conditional appointment to the selected candidate. The judge was dealing with a writ petition filed by Banothu Raveendar and Ravi Guguloth, both local ST community candidates with NET qualification and proven Telugu proficiency. Although the notification stated that Telugu knowledge was “preferable,” the appointment order required the selected candidate to clear a TSPSC Telugu language test within three years, which the judge held effectively converted a non-mandatory requirement into a mandatory one without authority.
The judge found that such a conditional appointment was not contemplated in the recruitment notification and could not be sustained to the exclusion of eligible local candidates. Taking note that the existing appointee has been in service since 2021, the judge allowed his continuance but directed that the petitioners be appointed with notional seniority from the same date, without retrospective monetary benefits.
