Punjab and Haryana High Court refuses to quash FIR against Ayurveda doctor accused of ‘initiating’ pregnancy termination

The Punjab and Haryana High Court recently refused to quash a case of illegal termination of pregnancy against an Ayurveda doctor in Haryana’s Jind district [Dr Shoba v. State of Haryana]..Justice Deepak Gupta held that the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act (MTP Act) can be invoked even if the procedure for abortion is not completed.“As the meaning of “Termination of pregnancy" would reveal, it is the procedure to terminate a pregnancy by using either medical or surgical methods, and not the culmination of the procedure,” the Court opined..The Court made the observation to answer the argument made by the doctor’s counsel that since no procedure had taken place to terminate the pregnancy, the provisions of MTP Act could not have been invoked.Justice Gupta explained that in the context of ‘termination of pregnancy’, the procedure refers to the medical or surgical steps undertaken to end the pregnancy intentionally. The Court added that in case of abortion, the specified procedure can vary and may involve either use of medication or surgery, each with its own set of steps and considerations..In the present case, the health authorities had received information about illegal abortions being carried out at Shubham hospital. A raiding team then contacted one such pregnant woman.The pregnant woman told the team that she had met Dr. Shobha (petitioner) of Shubham Hospital on February 7, 2021 and had told her that she wanted to keep the fetus, give birth to the child and did not want any termination or abortion, but Dr. Shobha (petitioner) told her that it was impossible to keep the child alive and that she will get the abortion done. After saying so, the doctor gave her injections and tablets and was charged ₹1,600 and was asked to come back after 3 to 4 days. The raiding team then laid a trap with the help of the pregnant woman. She went to Shubham Hospital with her husband where Dr. Shobha made her lie down on the bed and started the procedure for terminating her pregnancy. The raiding team then arrived and collected medical and documentary evidence and arrested Dr. Shobha. The team sealed the hospital and also got the pregnant woman admitted to the civil hospital where the actual termination of pregnancy then took place..A first information report (FIR) was registered against Dr. Shobha under MTP Act on the ground that she was not authorized to carry out termination of the pregnancy as per Rules 2003 of the MTP Act since she was an Ayurvedic doctor. The petitioner then moved the Court seeking quashing of the FIR. She contended that she has performed more than 1,800 normal deliveries for the last 20 years and was falsely implicated in the case.It was also submitted before the Court that the pregnant woman was simply lying on the bed for the checkup and nothing was done with regard to termination of pregnancy..After considering the submissions, the Court at the outset rejected the contention that MTP Act can be invoked only when the procedure for abortion has concluded.The Court further noted that the pregnant women had already been given the medicines for abortion when the raid took place.The doctor had also argued that medication called misoprostol is used at the time of delivery an no inference can be drawn against the doctor based on the same.The Court, however, rejected the argument..In this regard, the bench reasoned that while misoprostol is also used for inducing labour pain at the time of delivery, there was no question of using it in the present case as the woman was pregnant only for over seven weeks. “So prima facie the only inference that can be drawn is that misoprostol injection was given to end the pregnancy. Thus, process to terminate the pregnancy of the pregnant woman … had already started, within the meaning of Section 2 (e) of the MTP Act,” it added.Hence, the Court dismissed the petition..Advocate Aman Pal represented the petitioner.Additional Advocate General Randhir Singh represented the State of Haryana.[Read Judgment]