CHANDIGARH ADMINISTRATION Vs. NEMO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE 2nd phase of the non - adverbial Public Interest Litigation, embattled on an emotional pitch, has led to the passing of this order which is to be read in continuity with our order dated 9th June, 2009, whereby besides constitution of an expert -body to examine the victim and opine on the medical termination of her pregnancy allegedly caused due to her repeated rape, various directions, to improve the functional conditions of the government run/aided special homes for destitute , orphans, mentally ill or retarded persons, were also issued.

(2.) AT the cost of repetition, it may be mentioned here that the victim - an orphan, is a mentally retarded young girl of 19 -20 years of age and while she was an inmate of a government run institution, namely, Nari Niketan, Sector 26, Chandigarh, was repeatedly raped allegedly by more than one security guards of the institute. She was shifted to another government run institute - Ashreya where her pregnancy was detected on 18th May, 2009. Based upon the recommendation made by the multi -member Medical Board constituted by the Director Principal, Government Medical College & Hospital, Sector 32, Chandigarh for medical termination of the pregnancy of the victim, the Chandigarh Administration has filed this writ petition, statedly in public interest, seeking permission of this Court for medical termination of pregnancy of the victim.

(3.) WITH a view to be inerrant about the mental and physical state of the victim, we decided to obtain a second medical opinion from an Expert Body comprising eminent experts from the Post - Graduate Institute of Medical Education & Research, Chandigarh and nominated a fairly senior Judicial Officer in the rank of Additional District & Sessions Judge as its Member -cum -Co -ordinator. From our point of view, we requested the Expert Body to specifically address 13 issues framed by us but also left it open to the experts to frame any other additional issue[s] as they may deem appropriate and give their categorical opinion in relation thereto.