HC asks hospital to form panel to see if woman with chronic illness can undergo abortion
New Delhi, The Delhi High Court has directed Safdarjung Hospital to form a medical board to ascertain if a 29-week pregnant woman suffering from a chronic kidney disease could undergo abortion.
Justice Sachin Datta said in case the medical board opined that the termination of pregnancy was warranted, the hospital would proceed with procedure on the 39-year-old woman.
"It is directed that a medical board be constituted at the Safdarjung hospital for the examination of the petitioner, for the purpose of assessing whether the present case qualifies for medical termination of pregnancy under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act , 1971," the high court said.
In its May 29 order, the court called it a matter of medical emergency in which the woman's life was in danger though no foetal abnormality was diagnosed.
The woman moved the high court seeking permission to terminate her pregnancy, which was of 27 weeks at the time, as doctors opined a serious risk to the her life if the pregnancy continued.
She moved the court as doctors expressed their inability to proceed due to the statutory restrictions under the MTP Act, limiting such procedures to 20 weeks in ordinary cases and 24 weeks in certain categories such as rape survivors.
The woman said she was undergoing treatment for her condition at a private hospital in Gurugram and she learnt about her pregnancy only on April 22.
She subsequently approached Safdarjung Hospital in the national capital and over the following few weeks, the doctors conducted a series of tests, informing her about her 27-week pregnancy on May 19 and the complications it posed.
Safdarjung Hospital was represented by senior panel counsel Farman Ali.
During the hearing, the judge interacted with a doctor of the hospital through video-conferencing when she informed about the petitioner's chronic kidney disease, warranting the termination of her pregnancy.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
15 minutes ago
- Business Standard
Delhi High Court quashes NCISMC chief's appointment due to ineligibility
The Delhi High Court on Friday set aside the appointment of Vaidya Jayant Yeshwant Deopujari as the chairperson of the National Commission for Indian System of Medicine (NCISMC), holding him ineligible for office on the grounds that, despite having a Ph.D, he had not completed a Master's degree programme. A bench comprising Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela allowed two petitions challenging Deopujari's appointment. 'The writ petitions are allowed, and a writ of quo warranto quashing and setting aside the appointment of respondent 5 (Deopujari) as Chairperson of the Commission is issued,' the bench held. The court passed the order in response to petitions filed by Ved Prakash Tyagi, former president of the erstwhile Central Council for Indian Medicine, and Dr Raghunandan Sharma. The Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances, and Pensions had issued a circular on June 9, 2021, appointing Deopujari as the commission's chairperson. The petitioners argued that Deopujari could not be appointed as he did not meet the eligibility criteria under the National Commission for Indian System of Medicine Act, 2020 (NCISM Act). The Act stipulates that the chairperson must possess a postgraduate degree in medical education and have 20 years of experience in the medical field. The court found that Deopujari did not fulfil the required academic criteria, stating that the Ph.D awarded to him by Pune University did not presuppose acquisition of a lower qualification, i.e., a Master's degree in Ayurveda. It noted that Deopujari was admitted to the Ph.D programme immediately after obtaining his graduation degree in Ayurveda (BAMS), without undergoing a Master's degree course. What is the National Commission for Indian System of Medicine? The National Commission for Indian System of Medicine is a statutory regulatory body established under the NCISM Act, 2020. It is responsible for framing policies and ensuring quality standards in institutions offering education in the Indian system of medicine. The Commission replaced the Central Council of Indian Medicine.
The Hindu
41 minutes ago
- The Hindu
Delhi HC sets aside appointment of NCISMC chairperson
The Delhi High Court on Friday (June 6, 2025) quashed the appointment of Vaidya Jayant Yeshwant Deopujari as Chairperson of the National Commission for Indian System of Medicine, holding that he does not meet the qualification prescribed for appointment to the office. The court passed the order on two petitions filed by Ved Prakash Tyagi, former president of the erstwhile Central Council for Indian Medicine, and Dr. Raghunandan Sharma challenging the appointment of Mr. Deopujari as the chairperson of the commission (NCISMC). The Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances, and Pensions had issued a circular on June 9, 2021, appointing Mr. Deopujari as the commission's chairperson. The petitioners have alleged that Mr. Deopujari could not be appointed as the chairperson of the commission as he does not hold a postgraduate degree, mandated under the National Commission for Indian System of Medicine Act, 2020 (NCISM Act). The court held that Mr. Deopujari possessed a PhD degree, whereas the requisite degree was an MD or any other equivalent master's degree in any discipline of the Indian System of Medicine. The PhD degree that was awarded to him by Pune University did not presuppose acquisition of a lower qualification (Master's Degree in Ayurveda), it said. Ineligible person 'We have no hesitation to hold that the expression 'Post-Graduate Degree' occurring in Section 4(2) of the NCISM Act, 2020, in the context it has been used, would mean a Master's Degree (MD) in any discipline of Indian System of Medicine, which the respondent does not possess, and, therefore, he lacks the requisite qualification for being appointed to the office in question,' the court said. Mr. Tyagi's plea said the commission was a governing body for all matters relating to education and regulation of Indian medicine in the country. 'Thus, the interests of a large number of people/students/Indian medicine practitioners shall be adversely and severely affected if an ineligible person is allowed to continue as the chairperson of such a critical statutory body,' he added. The court noted that the counsel representing the Commission has stated in the court that the process of selection and appointment of the Chairperson of the Commission has commenced. 'Accordingly, we direct that the said process shall be completed with expedition, and while conducting the process of selection, the observations made hereinabove in this judgment shall be taken into account,' the court added.
Indian Express
5 hours ago
- Indian Express
After 6 years, intervention by 2 ministries and Delhi HC, Australian child born in India through surrogacy gets exit visa nod
It took six years and multiple back-and-forths between two key Union ministries and the Delhi High Court to ensure an exit visa for a six-year-old child born through surrogacy to Indian-origin Australian citizens in 2019, before the Surrogacy Act came into force in 2022. In the absence of clarity among the two ministries – Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) – and after several 'procedural hurdles', the MHA on May 21 directed its Bureau of Immigration to issue an exit visa to the child, subject to payment of late fees for overstay beyond 90 days. The MHA then informed the high court of its decision, recorded in an order by Justice Sachin Datta on May 26. An exit visa is permission granted to a foreigner to leave India in the absence of a valid visa or entry into a country. In the case of the child, born in India and staying here since, his passport as an Australian citizen had no entry stamp to India, thus requiring an exit visa to leave the country. The MHA's decision came after the child's father, an Australian citizen, moved the Delhi High Court earlier this year seeking directions to issue an exit visa for his child, which he had applied for nearly two years ago on April 28, 2023. He is expected to fly out later this month to Australia with his son, say his lawyers Rakesh Kumar and Puneet Kumar. The child's parents are Australian citizens with Overseas Citizen of India (OCI) registration. Born in 2019 in India, the child obtained Australian citizenship in January 2023 following a court order and after complying with the necessary processes. The child's mother, who suffers from Crohn's disease, had decided to go for a gestational surrogacy in 2019 in compliance with Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) Guidelines, 2005, which required the execution of a surrogacy agreement with the surrogate mother and intended parent. This was prior to the Surrogacy Regulation Act, 2021, which only came into effect in January 2022. The baby was born in Indore in June 2019, and while his mother died in 2021 due to COVID-19, by January 2023, the boy's father obtained the child's Australian citizenship along with a Mumbai civil court order granting him permission to take the minor from India to Australia. Days after issuing an Australian passport to the child in April 2023, his father applied for an exit visa on behalf of his son through the e-portal of the Foreigners Regional Registration Office (FRRO). In June 2024, the application was shown as 'completed' on the portal but with directions to 'wait for further instructions.' However, on August 14, 2024, the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare (MoHFW) issued an office memorandum (OM), informing the MHA that as per provisions of the Surrogacy Act 2021 and its Rules 2022, foreign nationals are not eligible to avail surrogacy services in India and, for a couple of Indian origin (OCI cardholders), they have to obtain a certificate of recommendation from the National Board formed under the Act before availing such surrogacy treatment. The office memorandum also sought documents from the father with respect to the surrogacy, by way of clarification. In further bureaucratic back and forth, in November 2024, the MHA sought that the father submit a No-Objection Certificate (NOC) from the MoHFW, and days later, the MoHFW telephonically informed the father that they are not responsible for issuing any such NOC. The petitioners – father and son – argued that the Surrogacy Act and its Rules cannot apply retrospectively as it was not in place when the child was born, and had termed the MoHFW's office memorandum of August 2024, directing them to submit proofs of requisite permissions as per the Act, as 'illegal'. When the case was first taken up by Justice Datta in April, it was argued that with the child obtaining admission in a school in Sydney for academic year 2025, the delay in the grant of visa is disrupting the child's education and prolonged absence from regular classes at school has led to issuance of absentee notice by the school, making him likely to suffer cancellation of his admission. At the time of the court hearing, the Union government was granted time to obtain instructions. On May 26, informing the court, the Union government submitted that 'during the year 2015, since there was no regulation on surrogacy in India, MHA had imposed restriction on grant of visa/exit permit to children born out of surrogacy to foreign nationals (including OCI cardholders).' 'Further, during the year 2021, the Surrogacy (Regulation) Act, 2021 was introduced by the Ministry of Health & Family Welfare and Surrogacy Rules were notified in 2022. The Surrogacy Rules permitted surrogacy only for Indian nationals and OCI cardholder parents. However, in the instant case, surrogacy was commissioned…before commencement of Surrogacy Regulation/law in India in violation of MHA guidelines,' the government told the high court. It added, 'Considering the peculiar circumstances of the case and in the interest of the child, the matter was examined in this Ministry. It has been decided to grant exit permit to the Petitioner No.1 after regularising his overstay period by charging appropriate financial penalty.' Taking the MHA's submission on record, Justice Datta thus directed that following payment of the necessary dues, the exit visa be granted to the child expeditiously, and disposed of the matter.
