- (1.) Heard Ms. Vrinda Grover, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. P.S. Narasimha and Mr. Tushar Mehta, learned Additional Solicitor General, Mr. Ajit Kumar Sinha, learned senior counsel for the Union of India. Be it clarified, the Union of India was not a party before the High Court. However, the learned counsel appearing for the Union of India have gladly come forward to assist the Court. We have also heard Ms. Abha R. Sharma, learned counsel for the State of Bihar.
(2.) The present case exposits a situation of its own kind. The petitioner, a woman, aged about thirty-five years, invoked the jurisdiction of the High Court of Patna in Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.5286 of 2017, seeking termination of the pregnancy on the ground that after being sexually assaulted, she was given rehabilitation in the Women Rehabilitation Centre, namely, 'Shanti Kutir', Mahila Punarwas Kendra, Patliputra, Patna, Bihar, where her pregnancy was discovered. It has also been found that she is HIV Positive. She expressed her desire to terminate the pregnancy on 4th March, 2017. Thereafter, she was examined by the Patna Medical College and Hospital. As nothing fruitful happened in the said College, the petitioner was compelled to knock at the doors of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
(3.) The High Court directed the petitioner to be examined by a Medical Board at Indira Gandhi Institute of Medical Sciences, Patna. The Board submitted a report that a major surgical procedure was required. The High Court took up the matter for hearing and, after referring to certain decisions of this Court, came to hold that the Medical Board report has stated that it would be unsafe to the life of the petitioner and further there is compelling State's responsibility to keep the child alive. We do not intend to get into those analysis of the High Court at present.;