Centre Asks States to Set up Permanent Medical Boards for Abortion Cases
Centre Asks States to Set up Permanent Medical Boards for Abortion Cases
The government has written to all states and Union Territories to set up such medical boards, Solicitor General Ranjit Kumar told the Supreme Court.

New Delhi: The Centre on Thursday informed the Supreme Court that it has written to all the states and Union Territories asking them to set up permanent medical boards for abortion cases

The government has written to all states and Union Territories to set up such medical boards, Solicitor General Ranjit Kumar told the Supreme Court.

The medical boards will examine requests for termination of pregnancy and cut delays in abortion .

This came as the apex court permitted a Pune-based woman to abort her 24-week foetus suffering from abnormalities. The SC relied on a report by a medical board which said that the foetus was without a skull and there was no treatment.

Earlier, the SC had urged the Central government to devise a mechanism to examine requests for abortion when continuing with pregnancy post 20 weeks may endanger life of women.

Currently, Section 3(2)(b) of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act (MTPA), 1971, bars abortion after 20th week.

A bench of Chief Justice of India J S Khehar and Justice D Y Chandrachud had noted there were scores of such petitions now being lined up before the apex court.

“Why don’t you consider setting up permanent medical boards in all districts across the states to examine such requests?” the bench asked Solicitor General Ranjit Kumar.

Kumar replied that the government was contemplating amendments in the MTPA and that one of the issues was about increasing the time limit for legal abortion.

At this, the court said that it would be appropriate for the law officer to seek instructions from authorities concerned it the government would consider having these medical boards till the time the law is amended. The SG said he would come back with instructions.

The query from the bench came as it declined a permission for aborting 32-week foetus of a 10-year-old rape survivor. The court found itself constrained in view of a report by a medical board, which opined that termination of pregnancy at this stage would not be in the interest of the girl’s life.

What's your reaction?

Comments

https://shivann.com/assets/images/user-avatar-s.jpg

0 comment

Write the first comment for this!