DIPAK MISRA,J. - (1.) An interlocutory application being I.A. No. 64980 of 2017 has been filed seeking certain directions. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, it is directed that name of the appellant in the cause title be substituted with Ms. Z so that her identity is not revealed; the Registry of the Court shall substitute the name of the appellant with Ms. Z in all records, including on the official website of this Court, and the Registry of the High Court of Patna shall substitute the name of the appellant with Ms. Z in all records, including the official 2 website of the High Court. Leave is granted to the appellant to seek substitution of her name with Ms. Z on all search engines such as google.com, legal websites such as indiakanoon.org as well as legal journals. Interlocutory application is accordingly allowed.
(2.) The factual score that has been depicted in the instant appeal is reflective of a retardant attitude and laxness to the application of the provisions of law at the appropriate time by the authorities that can cause a disastrous affect on the mind of a hapless victim. And the victim here is a destitute woman, who was brought to a shelter home from the footpath, as she was not wanted by her husband and her family, living in abject poverty and being scared of social stigma could not afford her a home. Sans a sense of belonging, she was brought to 'Shanti Kutir', a shelter home, run by an organization named Youth Mobilization for National Advancement (YMNA) under the Mukhyamantri Bhikshavriti Nivaran Yojna a scheme floated by the Government of Bihar for destitute women. The woman, a destitute, was found to be pregnant by the functionaries of the home and further being aware of the fact that she had been condemned to that condition because of rape committed on her, the competent authority of the home took her to the hospital for termination of pregnancy with her consent. Though the steps taken by the shelter home were prompt, yet delay was caused by the authorities of the hospital. The delay in such a situation has the seed that can cause depression to a woman, who is already in despair. And this despair has the potentiality to drive one on the path of complete distress. In such a situation, the victim in a state of anguish may even think of surrendering to death or live with a traumatic experience which can be compared to have a life that has been fragmented at the cellular level. It is because the duty cast on the authorities under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 (for brevity, 'the Act') is not dutifully performed, and the failure has ultimately given rise to a catastrophe; a prolonged torment. That is the sad narrative of the victim appellant.
(3.) The appellant, a thirty-five year old woman, was living on the footpath in Phulwarisharif, Patna. On 25th January, 2017, she was brought to Shanti Kutir. The medical test done by Shanti Kutir showed that she was pregnant. On 2nd February, 2017, she was taken to Patna Medical College Hospital, Patna (PMCH), for medical examination. On 8th February, 2017, an ultrasound test was done at PMCH, and it was found that she was 13 weeks and 6 days pregnant. On 4th March, 2017, she expressed her desire to terminate the pregnancy and, accordingly, she was taken to PMCH for further medical examination. At that juncture, the appellant revealed that she had been raped and, therefore, the pregnancy should be terminated. On 14th March, 2017, she was taken to PMCH for termination and her father and brother were called and made to sign a consent form, which they duly signed. However, the hospital authorities did not proceed with the termination of the pregnancy. It is worthy to mention here that on 18th March, 2017, an F.I.R. under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) was registered with Mahila Police Station, Patna as Case No.13 of 2017. The Home Superintendent, Shanti Kutir wrote to the Superintendent of Patna Medical College and Hospital, Patna, stating, inter alia, that the pregnancy is more than 17 weeks and a divorce petition had been filed by the husband, and the father and the brother of the appellant expressed their inability to take her with them because of social and financial constraints. On 3rd April, 2017, she was again taken to PMCH, but the termination was not carried out and, by that time, her pregnancy was 20 weeks old. As the factual narration would reveal, the appellant was found to be HIV+ve. ;