The Delhi High Court has recalled its recent order where it permitted a woman to terminate her 29 weeks pregnancy as she was suffering with extreme trauma after her husband’s death.

Justice Subramonium Prasad said that the order is recalled while he hearing an application seeking recall of the order passed on January 04 by the Central Government.

On January 4,Justice Prasad had allowed the woman to undergo medical termination of pregnancy findimg that she has right to reproductive choice.

The court had permitted termination, taking in consideration as in the current case continuing with pregnancy could have impaired her mental stability as she was showing suicidal tendencies.

The woman in question was married in February last year, filed the plea seeking medical termination of her pregnancy after her husband died on October 19, 2023.

The AIIMS in its report stated that the woman expressed depressed mood, suicidal foeticidal thoughts and was provisionally diagnosed as depression with problems related to death of spouse and a differential diagnosis of adjustment disorder.

Central Government filed an application seeking recall of the order, saying that the child has a fair chance of survival and the court should consider protecting the right to life of the unborn infant.

AIIMS had also moved court submitting that the outcome will be much better if the child is delivered at 34 weeks of pregnancy or beyond.

It also said that it is advisable that the pregnancy be continued for another two or three weeks for the betterment of the health of the mother and the minor.

Thereafter, the court had directed the woman to undergo further psychiatric evaluation and counselling at AIIMS on January 16, 17 and 18.

It had also and asked AIIMS to place a report indicating the physical and mental health of the woman as well as the foetus.

In its application, the Central Government referred to an order passed by the Supreme Court last year wherein its earlier order allowing termination of 26 weeks pregnancy was recalled in view of the opinion of medical board.

The Supreme Court dismissed the plea of former ICICI Bank Chief Executive Officer and Managing Director Chanda Kochhar challenging her termination.

Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul said this falls within the realm of private contract between the bank and employee and dismissed it. Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, who appeared for Chanda Kochhar said the Delhi High Court dismissed my petition and its completely wrong.

He said, “My client is the MD of ICICI Bank. It was not open to the bank to take total action against me of my earlier retirement and virtually recalling my retirement and others .”

Challenging the HC decision, Rohatgi said, “The question of maintainability has to be examined. I wanted to show you two different clauses and one doesn’t apply to me and there is no prior approval against me. “

To this, Justice Kaul said, “We wanted to know Mr Rohatgi the role of the RBI in the case.” Rophatgi replied, “Mandate of the statute, and the RBI has to go with this. Without the prior approval of the RBI, the decision was taken.”

He said, “Our case is not related to amendment but with legislature. No appointment, reappointment and they have converted my resignation to termination.”

Rohatgi asked whether termination can be done without approving the resignation is a question? The embargo is on the concerned bank.

Justice Kaul questioned the senior advocate if the writ petition is maintainable. “RBI in its wisdom had given its approval,” the Justice said.

Rohatgi added, “The employee is not covered under 35 B of Employees Act. How can my resignation be converted to termination? The RBI had no business to do this. RBI is dealing with millions of crores of rupees. I am also bringing a public element. The bank is governed by the CCI, SEBI.”

Justice Kaul asked if the RBI, did not approve your termination? Rohatgi replied, “If the RBI had not granted its approval for termination, then it would be nullified.” He explained that Chanda Kochhar’s termination is wrong. “What happens to my reputation? I almost worked for 30 years in the bank,” he said.

Also Read: Supreme Court sets aside NCPCR plan to send child inmates from children’s home back to parents due to Covid-19 outbreak

To this, the court said, “We are not inclined to interfere with the HC order”, before dismissing it.