Karnataka High Court rejects teen rape victim's plea to undergo abortion
Bengaluru: The Karnataka High Court on Thursday rejected the plea of a 17-year-old rape victim seeking permission to undergo abortion. The court rejected her plea after considering Vani Vilasa Government Hospital's medical board’s report saying termination of pregnancy would not be good for both the girl and the foetus.
Following the HC directions, the government doctors at Vani Vilasa Hospital, who had examined the girl, reported that the foetus was already 20 plus weeks old, and abortion at this stage would endanger the life of both the rape victim and the foetus. However a private hospital, which had examined the victim separately, has opined that abortion can be carried out. But the government advocate took strong objections citing that the private hospital has taken the victim’s statement into account before coming to such a conclusion. He further argued that The Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act of 1971 bars abortion if the foetus is more than 20 weeks old.
According to the law, an exception is made if a registered medical practitioner certifies to a court that the continued pregnancy is life-threatening for either the mother or the baby.
The rape victim had approached the court on the ground that she will mentally suffer if she had to deliver the baby at such a young age and it would also adversely affect her health.
BS Yeddyurappa plea adjourned
The High Court has adjourned the hearing of the petitions filed by former chief minister B.S. Yeddyurappa challenging the FIRs registered against him in connection with the denotification case relating to Dr K. Shivaram Karanth Layout in North Bengaluru, to September 4. Meanwhile, the court has extended its earlier order, directing ACB, to not take any precipitative action such as arrest and summoning Yeddyurappa in connection with the denotification case till then.
Bakrid: Plea to protect animals
With Bakrid festival being celebrated on Saturday, a petition has been filed in the High Court seeking directions to state and BBMP to strictly follow ‘The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act’ in the interest of the animals.
Citing that it is a case of larger public interest, a single judge bench has directed it to place it before a division bench of the hc to treat it as a PIL.
