April 30, 2026

Chennai: A Tamil Nadu govt order restricting maternity leave for third pregnancy to 12 weeks is unjustifiable and against the law settled by the Supreme Court, Madras high court ruled on Wednesday.The division bench of Justice R Suresh Kumar and Justice N Senthilkumar set aside the orders of the principal district judge, Villupuram, dated March 27, 2026, which rejected the representation of the petitioner seeking maternity leave from Feb 2, 2026 to Feb 1, 2027, and the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Villupuram, which asked her to rejoin on April 27, 2026.”This kind of restriction is against the dictum of the Supreme Court as well as this court. The same cannot be approved by this court… In pregnancy, whether first, second or third, the suffering would be the same and the pre-delivery as well as the post-delivery care that a mother needs to take is same,” the bench said.”Therefore, no discrimination could be shown by govt in approving the maternity benefits, especially maternity leave for the third pregnancy, to the employees,” the high court said.End of ArticleFollow Us On Social MediaVideosNYC Mayor Mamdani Says He’ll Urge King Charles To Return Kohinoor DiamondRaghav Chadha Fallout: Who Really Wins and Loses in Punjab?Mumbai–Pune Expressway’s ‘Missing Link’ Opens May 1: Faster Travel, Better Safety, No Extra Toll90-Year-Old Rejects Apology, Then Court Pushes ₹20 Crore Case to 2046Ganga Expressway Inaugurated: What ₹1,500 Toll Gets You on UP’s 594-km High-Speed Corridor | PM ModiUAE Quits OPEC In Big Oil Shake-Up: What It Means For India‘Siddaramaiah Ready To Step Down As Karnataka CM If Rahul Gandhi Asks’: Ex-Minister RajannaBengal Phase 2 Polls: 142 Constituencies Vote Today, Over 3.21 Crore Voters to DecideChokepoints of Power: how India can ‘trump’ China on the seasSwati Maliwal’s Explosive Exit: Assault Allegations, ‘Betrayal’ Charges Rock AAP As She Joins BJP123PhotostoriesAfter 35, your bones start weakening silently: What most women aren’t told early5 lessons from Premanand Ji Maharaj for a more peaceful, happy, and fulfilling life10 divine baby girl names inspired by Goddess Durga6 low-maintenance plants that survive even if you forget to water themMorning affirmation at 5am: Wake up, check in for a soul resetHow to make Cucumber Sandwich for a light summer breakfastTaarak Mehta Ka Ooltah Chashmah: Who is Nilesh Bhatt? Meet the actor who played over 20 different roles on the showWhy does day-old rice get dry in the refrigerator? 4 easy fixes to keep it soft and fluffy‘Ted Lasso’ season 4 release: Here is all you need to knowShe thought it was stress, doctors found a hormone disorder123Hot PicksExit Poll Result 2026Bengal Election 2026Bengal Poll Phase 2 ViolenceFirhad HakimMK StalinExit Poll PredictionsHimanta Biswa SarmaTop TrendingAssembly Election Exit PollsExit Poll results 2026Bengal Exit Polls 2026Puducherry Exit Polls 2026Exit PollNavy LaunchRaja Raghuvanshi Wife BailBengal PollsGanga ExpresswayIPL Orange Cap

Vamsikrishna01 mins mins
Chennai: A Tamil Nadu govt order restricting maternity leave for third pregnancy to 12 weeks is unjustifiable and against the law settled by the Supreme Court, Madras high court ruled on Wednesday.The division bench of Justice R Suresh Kumar and Justice N Senthilkumar set aside the orders of the principal district judge, Villupuram, dated March 27, 2026, which rejected the representation of the petitioner seeking maternity leave from Feb 2, 2026 to Feb 1, 2027, and the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Villupuram, which asked her to rejoin on April 27, 2026.”This kind of restriction is against the dictum of the Supreme Court as well as this court. The same cannot be approved by this court… In pregnancy, whether first, second or third, the suffering would be the same and the pre-delivery as well as the post-delivery care that a mother needs to take is same,” the bench said.”Therefore, no discrimination could be shown by govt in approving the maternity benefits, especially maternity leave for the third pregnancy, to the employees,” the high court said.End of ArticleFollow Us On Social MediaVideosNYC Mayor Mamdani Says He’ll Urge King Charles To Return Kohinoor DiamondRaghav Chadha Fallout: Who Really Wins and Loses in Punjab?Mumbai–Pune Expressway’s ‘Missing Link’ Opens May 1: Faster Travel, Better Safety, No Extra Toll90-Year-Old Rejects Apology, Then Court Pushes ₹20 Crore Case to 2046Ganga Expressway Inaugurated: What ₹1,500 Toll Gets You on UP’s 594-km High-Speed Corridor | PM ModiUAE Quits OPEC In Big Oil Shake-Up: What It Means For India‘Siddaramaiah Ready To Step Down As Karnataka CM If Rahul Gandhi Asks’: Ex-Minister RajannaBengal Phase 2 Polls: 142 Constituencies Vote Today, Over 3.21 Crore Voters to DecideChokepoints of Power: how India can ‘trump’ China on the seasSwati Maliwal’s Explosive Exit: Assault Allegations, ‘Betrayal’ Charges Rock AAP As She Joins BJP123PhotostoriesAfter 35, your bones start weakening silently: What most women aren’t told early5 lessons from Premanand Ji Maharaj for a more peaceful, happy, and fulfilling life10 divine baby girl names inspired by Goddess Durga6 low-maintenance plants that survive even if you forget to water themMorning affirmation at 5am: Wake up, check in for a soul resetHow to make Cucumber Sandwich for a light summer breakfastTaarak Mehta Ka Ooltah Chashmah: Who is Nilesh Bhatt? Meet the actor who played over 20 different roles on the showWhy does day-old rice get dry in the refrigerator? 4 easy fixes to keep it soft and fluffy‘Ted Lasso’ season 4 release: Here is all you need to knowShe thought it was stress, doctors found a hormone disorder123Hot PicksExit Poll Result 2026Bengal Election 2026Bengal Poll Phase 2 ViolenceFirhad HakimMK StalinExit Poll PredictionsHimanta Biswa SarmaTop TrendingAssembly Election Exit PollsExit Poll results 2026Bengal Exit Polls 2026Puducherry Exit Polls 2026Exit PollNavy LaunchRaja Raghuvanshi Wife BailBengal PollsGanga ExpresswayIPL Orange Cap


Allow leave for 3rd pregnancy: Madras HC to TN govt

Chennai: A Tamil Nadu govt order restricting maternity leave for third pregnancy to 12 weeks is unjustifiable and against the law settled by the Supreme Court, Madras high court ruled on Wednesday.The division bench of Justice R Suresh Kumar and Justice N Senthilkumar set aside the orders of the principal district judge, Villupuram, dated March 27, 2026, which rejected the representation of the petitioner seeking maternity leave from Feb 2, 2026 to Feb 1, 2027, and the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Villupuram, which asked her to rejoin on April 27, 2026.“This kind of restriction is against the dictum of the Supreme Court as well as this court. The same cannot be approved by this court… In pregnancy, whether first, second or third, the suffering would be the same and the pre-delivery as well as the post-delivery care that a mother needs to take is same,” the bench said.“Therefore, no discrimination could be shown by govt in approving the maternity benefits, especially maternity leave for the third pregnancy, to the employees,” the high court said.



Source link

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Related News

New Delhi: Supreme Court on Wednesday said if a person’s fundamental right to freedom of religion is held to be superior to the identical right of a group or denomination, it could lead to dangerous consequences and the court was not going to be part of the process for annihilation of a religion. .Bindu Ammini, a lawyer and social activist who was manhandled for attempting to enter Sabarimala after the 2018 SC judgment removed the ban on entry of women in the 10-50 age group, asserted her fundamental right to enter a temple. Indira Jaising, appearing for Bindu and another woman Kanakadurga, said there was no theological bar on women entering any public temple.Appearing before a bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices B V Nagarathna, M M Sundresh, A Amanullah, Aravind Kumar, A G Masih, P B Varale, R Mahadevan and J Bagchi, advocate Indira Jaising said Bindu did not dispute the ‘naistik brahmachari’ attributes of Ayyappa at Sabarimala, but the custom could not be the ground for violation of her fundamental right to enter the temple.Jaising said that the Indian Constitution was hailed as unique across the world because it gave prominence to individuals’ fundamental rights. “If a woman wants to go into a temple, what legal injury is she causing to anyone? If the court wants to rule the other way round, let it go ahead and do it and the world will be watching how the Supreme Court of India is developing jurisprudence relating to rights of women,” Jaising said.Justice Sundresh disagreed with her line of argument and asked if an individual’s right to freedom of religion under Article 25(1) clashed with that right of a group of devotees or followers of a denomination, whose right should prevail?”How do we enforce individual rights when it violates fundamental rights of others? Article 25(1) right of one cannot be pitted against another. If we agree with your submissions, it will lead to dangerous consequences. If each devotee goes to a common deity and exercises his freedom to worship in a different manner, the consequences will be disastrous for the religion or denomination itself,” he said.Justice Nagarathna agreed with him and said, “It will lead to annihilation of religion, and we do not want to be a part of it. Matters of religion are not a subject on which either the court or the legislature can sit in judgment. It cannot be a matter of debate because it is a matter of conscience.”Justice Amanullah asked whether a practice or custom, which has crystallised over centuries, should be removed by a court to ensure that a person must go into a temple despite knowing that it would hurt the religious feelings of the majority of the followers of the denomination. Arguments will continue on Thursday.End of ArticleFollow Us On Social MediaVideos12 Killed, Dozens Injured As Pickup Collides With SUV On Indore–Ahmedabad HighwayNYC Mayor Mamdani Says He’ll Urge King Charles To Return Kohinoor DiamondRaghav Chadha Fallout: Who Really Wins and Loses in Punjab?Mumbai–Pune Expressway’s ‘Missing Link’ Opens May 1: Faster Travel, Better Safety, No Extra Toll90-Year-Old Rejects Apology, Then Court Pushes ₹20 Crore Case to 2046Ganga Expressway Inaugurated: What ₹1,500 Toll Gets You on UP’s 594-km High-Speed Corridor | PM ModiUAE Quits OPEC In Big Oil Shake-Up: What It Means For India‘Siddaramaiah Ready To Step Down As Karnataka CM If Rahul Gandhi Asks’: Ex-Minister RajannaBengal Phase 2 Polls: 142 Constituencies Vote Today, Over 3.21 Crore Voters to DecideChokepoints of Power: how India can ‘trump’ China on the seas123PhotostoriesUNESCO-recognised rail wonders of India and why they’re among the world’s most unique train experiencesAfter 35, your bones start weakening silently: What most women aren’t told early5 lessons from Premanand Ji Maharaj for a more peaceful, happy, and fulfilling life10 divine baby girl names inspired by Goddess Durga6 low-maintenance plants that survive even if you forget to water themMorning affirmation at 5am: Wake up, check in for a soul resetHow to make Cucumber Sandwich for a light summer breakfastTaarak Mehta Ka Ooltah Chashmah: Who is Nilesh Bhatt? Meet the actor who played over 20 different roles on the showWhy does day-old rice get dry in the refrigerator? 4 easy fixes to keep it soft and fluffy‘Ted Lasso’ season 4 release: Here is all you need to know123Hot PicksExit Poll Result 2026Bengal Election 2026Bengal Poll Phase 2 ViolenceFirhad HakimMK StalinExit Poll PredictionsHimanta Biswa SarmaTop TrendingAssembly Election Exit PollsExit Poll results 2026Bengal Exit Polls 2026Puducherry Exit Polls 2026Exit PollNavy LaunchRaja Raghuvanshi Wife BailBengal PollsGanga ExpresswayIPL Orange Cap

New Delhi: Supreme Court on Wednesday said if a person’s fundamental right to freedom of religion is held to be superior to the identical right of a group or denomination, it could lead to dangerous consequences and the court was not going to be part of the process for annihilation of a religion. .Bindu Ammini, a lawyer and social activist who was manhandled for attempting to enter Sabarimala after the 2018 SC judgment removed the ban on entry of women in the 10-50 age group, asserted her fundamental right to enter a temple. Indira Jaising, appearing for Bindu and another woman Kanakadurga, said there was no theological bar on women entering any public temple.Appearing before a bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices B V Nagarathna, M M Sundresh, A Amanullah, Aravind Kumar, A G Masih, P B Varale, R Mahadevan and J Bagchi, advocate Indira Jaising said Bindu did not dispute the ‘naistik brahmachari’ attributes of Ayyappa at Sabarimala, but the custom could not be the ground for violation of her fundamental right to enter the temple.Jaising said that the Indian Constitution was hailed as unique across the world because it gave prominence to individuals’ fundamental rights. “If a woman wants to go into a temple, what legal injury is she causing to anyone? If the court wants to rule the other way round, let it go ahead and do it and the world will be watching how the Supreme Court of India is developing jurisprudence relating to rights of women,” Jaising said.Justice Sundresh disagreed with her line of argument and asked if an individual’s right to freedom of religion under Article 25(1) clashed with that right of a group of devotees or followers of a denomination, whose right should prevail?”How do we enforce individual rights when it violates fundamental rights of others? Article 25(1) right of one cannot be pitted against another. If we agree with your submissions, it will lead to dangerous consequences. If each devotee goes to a common deity and exercises his freedom to worship in a different manner, the consequences will be disastrous for the religion or denomination itself,” he said.Justice Nagarathna agreed with him and said, “It will lead to annihilation of religion, and we do not want to be a part of it. Matters of religion are not a subject on which either the court or the legislature can sit in judgment. It cannot be a matter of debate because it is a matter of conscience.”Justice Amanullah asked whether a practice or custom, which has crystallised over centuries, should be removed by a court to ensure that a person must go into a temple despite knowing that it would hurt the religious feelings of the majority of the followers of the denomination. Arguments will continue on Thursday.End of ArticleFollow Us On Social MediaVideos12 Killed, Dozens Injured As Pickup Collides With SUV On Indore–Ahmedabad HighwayNYC Mayor Mamdani Says He’ll Urge King Charles To Return Kohinoor DiamondRaghav Chadha Fallout: Who Really Wins and Loses in Punjab?Mumbai–Pune Expressway’s ‘Missing Link’ Opens May 1: Faster Travel, Better Safety, No Extra Toll90-Year-Old Rejects Apology, Then Court Pushes ₹20 Crore Case to 2046Ganga Expressway Inaugurated: What ₹1,500 Toll Gets You on UP’s 594-km High-Speed Corridor | PM ModiUAE Quits OPEC In Big Oil Shake-Up: What It Means For India‘Siddaramaiah Ready To Step Down As Karnataka CM If Rahul Gandhi Asks’: Ex-Minister RajannaBengal Phase 2 Polls: 142 Constituencies Vote Today, Over 3.21 Crore Voters to DecideChokepoints of Power: how India can ‘trump’ China on the seas123PhotostoriesUNESCO-recognised rail wonders of India and why they’re among the world’s most unique train experiencesAfter 35, your bones start weakening silently: What most women aren’t told early5 lessons from Premanand Ji Maharaj for a more peaceful, happy, and fulfilling life10 divine baby girl names inspired by Goddess Durga6 low-maintenance plants that survive even if you forget to water themMorning affirmation at 5am: Wake up, check in for a soul resetHow to make Cucumber Sandwich for a light summer breakfastTaarak Mehta Ka Ooltah Chashmah: Who is Nilesh Bhatt? Meet the actor who played over 20 different roles on the showWhy does day-old rice get dry in the refrigerator? 4 easy fixes to keep it soft and fluffy‘Ted Lasso’ season 4 release: Here is all you need to know123Hot PicksExit Poll Result 2026Bengal Election 2026Bengal Poll Phase 2 ViolenceFirhad HakimMK StalinExit Poll PredictionsHimanta Biswa SarmaTop TrendingAssembly Election Exit PollsExit Poll results 2026Bengal Exit Polls 2026Puducherry Exit Polls 2026Exit PollNavy LaunchRaja Raghuvanshi Wife BailBengal PollsGanga ExpresswayIPL Orange Cap

Vamsikrishna 0
Supreme Court of India New Delhi: Supreme Court on Wednesday said if a person’s fundamental right to freedom of religion is held to be superior to the identical right of a group or denomination, it could lead to dangerous consequences and the court was not going to be part of the process for annihilation of a religion.Bindu Ammini, a lawyer and social activist who was manhandled for attempting to enter Sabarimala after the 2018 SC judgment removed the ban on entry of women in the 10-50 age group, asserted her fundamental right to enter a temple. Indira Jaising, appearing for Bindu and another woman Kanakadurga, said there was no theological bar on women entering any public temple.Matter of reli gion is a matter of conscience, not for debate: SCAppearing before a bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices B V Nagarathna, M M Sundresh, A Amanullah, Aravind Kumar, A G Masih, P B Varale, R Mahadevan and J Bagchi, advocate Indira Jaising said Bindu did not dispute the ‘naistik brahmachari’ attributes of Ayyappa at Sabarimala, but the custom could not be the ground for violation of her fundamental right to enter the temple.Jaising said that the Indian Constitution was hailed as unique across the world because it gave prominence to individuals’ fundamental rights. “If a woman wants to go into a temple, what legal injury is she causing to anyone? If the court wants to rule the other way round, let it go ahead and do it and the world will be watching how the Supreme Court of India is developing jurisprudence relating to rights of women,” Jaising said.Justice Sundresh disagreed with her line of argument and asked if an individual’s right to freedom of religion under Article 25(1) clashed with that right of a group of devotees or followers of a denomination, whose right should prevail?”How do we enforce individual rights when it violates fundamental rights of others? Article 25(1) right of one cannot be pitted against another. If we agree with your submissions, it will lead to dangerous consequences. If each devotee goes to a common deity and exercises his freedom to worship in a different manner, the consequences will be disastrous for the religion or denomination itself,” he said.Justice Nagarathna agreed with him and said, “It will lead to annihilation of religion, and we do not want to be a part of it. Matters of religion are not a subject on which either the court or the legislature can sit in judgment. It cannot be a matter of debate because it is a matter of conscience.”Justice Amanullah asked whether a practice or custom, which has crystallised over centuries, should be removed by a court to ensure that a person must go into a temple despite knowing that it would hurt the religious feelings of the majority of the followers of the denomination. Arguments will continue on Thursday.End of ArticleFollow Us On Social MediaVideos12 Killed, Dozens Injured As Pickup Collides With SUV On Indore–Ahmedabad HighwayNYC Mayor Mamdani Says He’ll Urge King Charles To Return Kohinoor DiamondRaghav Chadha Fallout: Who Really Wins and Loses in Punjab?Mumbai–Pune Expressway’s ‘Missing Link’ Opens May 1: Faster Travel, Better Safety, No Extra Toll90-Year-Old Rejects Apology, Then Court Pushes ₹20 Crore Case to 2046Ganga Expressway Inaugurated: What ₹1,500 Toll Gets You on UP’s 594-km High-Speed Corridor | PM ModiUAE Quits OPEC In Big Oil Shake-Up: What It Means For India‘Siddaramaiah Ready To Step Down As Karnataka CM If Rahul Gandhi Asks’: Ex-Minister RajannaBengal Phase 2 Polls: 142 Constituencies Vote Today, Over 3.21 Crore Voters to DecideChokepoints of Power: how India can ‘trump’ China on the seas123PhotostoriesUNESCO-recognised rail wonders of India and why they’re among the world’s most unique train experiencesAfter 35, your bones start weakening silently: What most women aren’t told early5 lessons from Premanand Ji Maharaj for a more peaceful, happy, and fulfilling life10 divine baby girl names inspired by Goddess Durga6 low-maintenance plants that survive even if you forget to water themMorning affirmation at 5am: Wake up, check in for a soul resetHow to make Cucumber Sandwich for a light summer breakfastTaarak Mehta Ka Ooltah Chashmah: Who is Nilesh Bhatt? Meet the actor who played over 20 different roles on the showWhy does day-old rice get dry in the refrigerator? 4 easy fixes to keep it soft and fluffy‘Ted Lasso’ season 4 release: Here is all you need to know123Hot PicksExit Poll Result 2026Bengal Election 2026Bengal Poll Phase 2 ViolenceFirhad HakimMK StalinExit Poll PredictionsHimanta Biswa SarmaTop TrendingAssembly Election Exit PollsExit Poll results 2026Bengal Exit Polls 2026Puducherry Exit Polls 2026Exit PollNavy LaunchRaja Raghuvanshi Wife BailBengal PollsGanga ExpresswayIPL Orange Cap

Supreme Court of India New Delhi: Supreme Court on Wednesday said if a person’s fundamental right to freedom of religion is held to be superior to the identical right of a group or denomination, it could lead to dangerous consequences and the court was not going to be part of the process for annihilation of a religion.Bindu Ammini, a lawyer and social activist who was manhandled for attempting to enter Sabarimala after the 2018 SC judgment removed the ban on entry of women in the 10-50 age group, asserted her fundamental right to enter a temple. Indira Jaising, appearing for Bindu and another woman Kanakadurga, said there was no theological bar on women entering any public temple.Matter of reli gion is a matter of conscience, not for debate: SCAppearing before a bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices B V Nagarathna, M M Sundresh, A Amanullah, Aravind Kumar, A G Masih, P B Varale, R Mahadevan and J Bagchi, advocate Indira Jaising said Bindu did not dispute the ‘naistik brahmachari’ attributes of Ayyappa at Sabarimala, but the custom could not be the ground for violation of her fundamental right to enter the temple.Jaising said that the Indian Constitution was hailed as unique across the world because it gave prominence to individuals’ fundamental rights. “If a woman wants to go into a temple, what legal injury is she causing to anyone? If the court wants to rule the other way round, let it go ahead and do it and the world will be watching how the Supreme Court of India is developing jurisprudence relating to rights of women,” Jaising said.Justice Sundresh disagreed with her line of argument and asked if an individual’s right to freedom of religion under Article 25(1) clashed with that right of a group of devotees or followers of a denomination, whose right should prevail?”How do we enforce individual rights when it violates fundamental rights of others? Article 25(1) right of one cannot be pitted against another. If we agree with your submissions, it will lead to dangerous consequences. If each devotee goes to a common deity and exercises his freedom to worship in a different manner, the consequences will be disastrous for the religion or denomination itself,” he said.Justice Nagarathna agreed with him and said, “It will lead to annihilation of religion, and we do not want to be a part of it. Matters of religion are not a subject on which either the court or the legislature can sit in judgment. It cannot be a matter of debate because it is a matter of conscience.”Justice Amanullah asked whether a practice or custom, which has crystallised over centuries, should be removed by a court to ensure that a person must go into a temple despite knowing that it would hurt the religious feelings of the majority of the followers of the denomination. Arguments will continue on Thursday.End of ArticleFollow Us On Social MediaVideos12 Killed, Dozens Injured As Pickup Collides With SUV On Indore–Ahmedabad HighwayNYC Mayor Mamdani Says He’ll Urge King Charles To Return Kohinoor DiamondRaghav Chadha Fallout: Who Really Wins and Loses in Punjab?Mumbai–Pune Expressway’s ‘Missing Link’ Opens May 1: Faster Travel, Better Safety, No Extra Toll90-Year-Old Rejects Apology, Then Court Pushes ₹20 Crore Case to 2046Ganga Expressway Inaugurated: What ₹1,500 Toll Gets You on UP’s 594-km High-Speed Corridor | PM ModiUAE Quits OPEC In Big Oil Shake-Up: What It Means For India‘Siddaramaiah Ready To Step Down As Karnataka CM If Rahul Gandhi Asks’: Ex-Minister RajannaBengal Phase 2 Polls: 142 Constituencies Vote Today, Over 3.21 Crore Voters to DecideChokepoints of Power: how India can ‘trump’ China on the seas123PhotostoriesUNESCO-recognised rail wonders of India and why they’re among the world’s most unique train experiencesAfter 35, your bones start weakening silently: What most women aren’t told early5 lessons from Premanand Ji Maharaj for a more peaceful, happy, and fulfilling life10 divine baby girl names inspired by Goddess Durga6 low-maintenance plants that survive even if you forget to water themMorning affirmation at 5am: Wake up, check in for a soul resetHow to make Cucumber Sandwich for a light summer breakfastTaarak Mehta Ka Ooltah Chashmah: Who is Nilesh Bhatt? Meet the actor who played over 20 different roles on the showWhy does day-old rice get dry in the refrigerator? 4 easy fixes to keep it soft and fluffy‘Ted Lasso’ season 4 release: Here is all you need to know123Hot PicksExit Poll Result 2026Bengal Election 2026Bengal Poll Phase 2 ViolenceFirhad HakimMK StalinExit Poll PredictionsHimanta Biswa SarmaTop TrendingAssembly Election Exit PollsExit Poll results 2026Bengal Exit Polls 2026Puducherry Exit Polls 2026Exit PollNavy LaunchRaja Raghuvanshi Wife BailBengal PollsGanga ExpresswayIPL Orange Cap

Vamsikrishna 0
Supreme Court New Delhi: The stand-off between AIIMS and a Delhi woman keen on medical termination of the 28-week pregnancy of her 15-year-old daughter has got embroiled in legal proceedings with Supreme Court dismissing the hospital’s review plea against its order allowing termination, the woman moving a contempt petition against the Union health secretary, and the Centre stepping in with a curative plea. On April 24, a bench of Justices B V Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan allowed medical termination on a plea from the mother and directed AIIMS-Delhi to undertake the exercise.Advanced stage no bar to terminate pregnancy: SCIn a detailed order, it held that medical termination of unwanted pregnancy cannot be rejected on grounds of advanced stage of pregnancy or normalcy of fetus. Not allowing the termination on that basis would “render the right to bodily autonomy nugatory”, the bench had said. Three days later, AIIMS sought a review of SC’s order. Referring to medical ethics and right of an unborn child, AIIMS said it would lead to preterm delivery of a deformed baby needing prolonged neonatal ICU support. The bench on Wednesday dismissed the review plea and said, “It is strange that the review petitioner, AIIMS, is not inclined to obey the SC’s order and instead is assailing the order of this court dated 24.04.2026 in order to defeat the constitutional rights of the minor daughter of the appellant.” The mother has filed a contempt petition against Union health secretary Punya Salila Srivastava through her lawyer Rahul Sharma. In her petition, listed for hearing Thursday, she has sought contempt proceedings for non-compliance of SC’s order. Centre has also filed a curative petition, which is the last resort to seek judicial remedy, against the apex court’s order. The curative petition is likely to be mentioned before the Chief Justice of India for urgent listing. As time is running out for the girl, the outcome of Thursday’s proceedings would finally decide the controversy.End of ArticleFollow Us On Social MediaVideosRaghav Chadha Fallout: Who Really Wins and Loses in Punjab?Mumbai–Pune Expressway’s ‘Missing Link’ Opens May 1: Faster Travel, Better Safety, No Extra Toll90-Year-Old Rejects Apology, Then Court Pushes ₹20 Crore Case to 2046Ganga Expressway Inaugurated: What ₹1,500 Toll Gets You on UP’s 594-km High-Speed Corridor | PM ModiUAE Quits OPEC In Big Oil Shake-Up: What It Means For India‘Siddaramaiah Ready To Step Down As Karnataka CM If Rahul Gandhi Asks’: Ex-Minister RajannaBengal Phase 2 Polls: 142 Constituencies Vote Today, Over 3.21 Crore Voters to DecideChokepoints of Power: how India can ‘trump’ China on the seasSwati Maliwal’s Explosive Exit: Assault Allegations, ‘Betrayal’ Charges Rock AAP As She Joins BJPIndian Aviation Sector Warns Of Possible Shutdown Amid Soaring Fuel Costs123Photostories5 lessons from Premanand Ji Maharaj for a more peaceful, happy, and fulfilling life10 divine baby girl names inspired by Goddess Durga6 low-maintenance plants that survive even if you forget to water themMorning affirmation at 5am: Wake up, check in for a soul resetHow to make Cucumber Sandwich for a light summer breakfastTaarak Mehta Ka Ooltah Chashmah: Who is Nilesh Bhatt? Meet the actor who played over 20 different roles on the showWhy does day-old rice get dry in the refrigerator? 4 easy fixes to keep it soft and fluffy‘Ted Lasso’ season 4 release: Here is all you need to knowShe thought it was stress, doctors found a hormone disorderTamannaah Bhatia serves Andy Sachs energy at ‘The Devil Wears Prada’ India screening in a dramatic David Koma ensemble123Hot PicksExit Poll Result 2026Bengal Election 2026Bengal Poll Phase 2 ViolenceFirhad HakimMK StalinExit Poll PredictionsHimanta Biswa SarmaTop TrendingAssembly Election Exit PollsExit Poll results 2026Bengal Exit Polls 2026Puducherry Exit Polls 2026Exit PollNavy LaunchRaja Raghuvanshi Wife BailBengal PollsGanga ExpresswayIPL Orange Cap

Supreme Court New Delhi: The stand-off between AIIMS and a Delhi woman keen on medical termination of the 28-week pregnancy of her 15-year-old daughter has got embroiled in legal proceedings with Supreme Court dismissing the hospital’s review plea against its order allowing termination, the woman moving a contempt petition against the Union health secretary, and the Centre stepping in with a curative plea. On April 24, a bench of Justices B V Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan allowed medical termination on a plea from the mother and directed AIIMS-Delhi to undertake the exercise.Advanced stage no bar to terminate pregnancy: SCIn a detailed order, it held that medical termination of unwanted pregnancy cannot be rejected on grounds of advanced stage of pregnancy or normalcy of fetus. Not allowing the termination on that basis would “render the right to bodily autonomy nugatory”, the bench had said. Three days later, AIIMS sought a review of SC’s order. Referring to medical ethics and right of an unborn child, AIIMS said it would lead to preterm delivery of a deformed baby needing prolonged neonatal ICU support. The bench on Wednesday dismissed the review plea and said, “It is strange that the review petitioner, AIIMS, is not inclined to obey the SC’s order and instead is assailing the order of this court dated 24.04.2026 in order to defeat the constitutional rights of the minor daughter of the appellant.” The mother has filed a contempt petition against Union health secretary Punya Salila Srivastava through her lawyer Rahul Sharma. In her petition, listed for hearing Thursday, she has sought contempt proceedings for non-compliance of SC’s order. Centre has also filed a curative petition, which is the last resort to seek judicial remedy, against the apex court’s order. The curative petition is likely to be mentioned before the Chief Justice of India for urgent listing. As time is running out for the girl, the outcome of Thursday’s proceedings would finally decide the controversy.End of ArticleFollow Us On Social MediaVideosRaghav Chadha Fallout: Who Really Wins and Loses in Punjab?Mumbai–Pune Expressway’s ‘Missing Link’ Opens May 1: Faster Travel, Better Safety, No Extra Toll90-Year-Old Rejects Apology, Then Court Pushes ₹20 Crore Case to 2046Ganga Expressway Inaugurated: What ₹1,500 Toll Gets You on UP’s 594-km High-Speed Corridor | PM ModiUAE Quits OPEC In Big Oil Shake-Up: What It Means For India‘Siddaramaiah Ready To Step Down As Karnataka CM If Rahul Gandhi Asks’: Ex-Minister RajannaBengal Phase 2 Polls: 142 Constituencies Vote Today, Over 3.21 Crore Voters to DecideChokepoints of Power: how India can ‘trump’ China on the seasSwati Maliwal’s Explosive Exit: Assault Allegations, ‘Betrayal’ Charges Rock AAP As She Joins BJPIndian Aviation Sector Warns Of Possible Shutdown Amid Soaring Fuel Costs123Photostories5 lessons from Premanand Ji Maharaj for a more peaceful, happy, and fulfilling life10 divine baby girl names inspired by Goddess Durga6 low-maintenance plants that survive even if you forget to water themMorning affirmation at 5am: Wake up, check in for a soul resetHow to make Cucumber Sandwich for a light summer breakfastTaarak Mehta Ka Ooltah Chashmah: Who is Nilesh Bhatt? Meet the actor who played over 20 different roles on the showWhy does day-old rice get dry in the refrigerator? 4 easy fixes to keep it soft and fluffy‘Ted Lasso’ season 4 release: Here is all you need to knowShe thought it was stress, doctors found a hormone disorderTamannaah Bhatia serves Andy Sachs energy at ‘The Devil Wears Prada’ India screening in a dramatic David Koma ensemble123Hot PicksExit Poll Result 2026Bengal Election 2026Bengal Poll Phase 2 ViolenceFirhad HakimMK StalinExit Poll PredictionsHimanta Biswa SarmaTop TrendingAssembly Election Exit PollsExit Poll results 2026Bengal Exit Polls 2026Puducherry Exit Polls 2026Exit PollNavy LaunchRaja Raghuvanshi Wife BailBengal PollsGanga ExpresswayIPL Orange Cap

Vamsikrishna 0