In a landmark judgment, the Supreme Court of India, invoking Article 142 of the Constitution, authorised the medical termination of pregnancy for a 14-year-old rape survivor whose tragic circumstances had pushed her beyond the usual legal bounds. This decision underscores the Court's commitment to ensuring justice and compassion override rigid legislative frameworks when critical human rights are at stake. The girl, a minor from Maharashtra, found herself in a dire situation, carrying the burden of a pregnancy from a reprehensible act of sexual violence. Her ordeal was exacerbated by the fact that she discovered her condition only after the pregnancy had advanced beyond the typical legal limit for termination set at 24 weeks. This case highlights a critical gap between statutory provisions and the on-ground realities faced by survivors of sexual assault.

The Supreme Court's intervention came as a necessary rectification to a High Court decision that denied the young survivor the urgent medical relief she required. By setting aside this decision, the apex court did not merely facilitate a medical procedure; it upheld the fundamental rights to health, autonomy, and dignity of the minor, which are enshrined in the Constitution. Current restrictions under the Act often do not account for the complexities involved in cases of sexual violence, especially where the survivors are minors unaware of their condition until it is too late. India's judiciary has set a commendable precedent by prioritising the mental and physical well-being of a vulnerable young girl over the procedural strictures that could have gravely harmed her. However, the road ahead remains fraught with challenges. As the Court itself has noted, unsafe abortions are a leading cause of maternal mortality in India, and many women continue to face insurmountable barriers in accessing safe abortion services. This ruling should prompt a broader legislative and societal reflection on how our systems can better support and empower women, particularly those who find themselves in similarly vulnerable positions. It is high time for policymakers to heed this call and ensure that the protective umbrella of the law is expansive enough to shelter every woman who requires its aid.

Which of the following best summarizes the passage?

In a landmark judgment, the Supreme Court of India, invoking Article 142 of the Constitution, authorised the medical termination of pregnancy for a 14-year-old rape survivor whose tragic circumstances had pushed her beyond the usual legal bounds. This decision underscores the Court's commitment to ensuring justice and compassion override rigid legislative frameworks when critical human rights are at stake. The girl, a minor from Maharashtra, found herself in a dire situation, carrying the burden of a pregnancy from a reprehensible act of sexual violence. Her ordeal was exacerbated by the fact that she discovered her condition only after the pregnancy had advanced beyond the typical legal limit for termination set at 24 weeks. This case highlights a critical gap between statutory provisions and the on-ground realities faced by survivors of sexual assault.

The Supreme Court's intervention came as a necessary rectification to a High Court decision that denied the young survivor the urgent medical relief she required. By setting aside this decision, the apex court did not merely facilitate a medical procedure; it upheld the fundamental rights to health, autonomy, and dignity of the minor, which are enshrined in the Constitution. Current restrictions under the Act often do not account for the complexities involved in cases of sexual violence, especially where the survivors are minors unaware of their condition until it is too late. India's judiciary has set a commendable precedent by prioritising the mental and physical well-being of a vulnerable young girl over the procedural strictures that could have gravely harmed her. However, the road ahead remains fraught with challenges. As the Court itself has noted, unsafe abortions are a leading cause of maternal mortality in India, and many women continue to face insurmountable barriers in accessing safe abortion services. This ruling should prompt a broader legislative and societal reflection on how our systems can better support and empower women, particularly those who find themselves in similarly vulnerable positions. It is high time for policymakers to heed this call and ensure that the protective umbrella of the law is expansive enough to shelter every woman who requires its aid.

According to the passage, what real-world impact might the Supreme Court's ruling have?

In a landmark judgment, the Supreme Court of India, invoking Article 142 of the Constitution, authorised the medical termination of pregnancy for a 14-year-old rape survivor whose tragic circumstances had pushed her beyond the usual legal bounds. This decision underscores the Court's commitment to ensuring justice and compassion override rigid legislative frameworks when critical human rights are at stake. The girl, a minor from Maharashtra, found herself in a dire situation, carrying the burden of a pregnancy from a reprehensible act of sexual violence. Her ordeal was exacerbated by the fact that she discovered her condition only after the pregnancy had advanced beyond the typical legal limit for termination set at 24 weeks. This case highlights a critical gap between statutory provisions and the on-ground realities faced by survivors of sexual assault.

The Supreme Court's intervention came as a necessary rectification to a High Court decision that denied the young survivor the urgent medical relief she required. By setting aside this decision, the apex court did not merely facilitate a medical procedure; it upheld the fundamental rights to health, autonomy, and dignity of the minor, which are enshrined in the Constitution. Current restrictions under the Act often do not account for the complexities involved in cases of sexual violence, especially where the survivors are minors unaware of their condition until it is too late. India's judiciary has set a commendable precedent by prioritising the mental and physical well-being of a vulnerable young girl over the procedural strictures that could have gravely harmed her. However, the road ahead remains fraught with challenges. As the Court itself has noted, unsafe abortions are a leading cause of maternal mortality in India, and many women continue to face insurmountable barriers in accessing safe abortion services. This ruling should prompt a broader legislative and societal reflection on how our systems can better support and empower women, particularly those who find themselves in similarly vulnerable positions. It is high time for policymakers to heed this call and ensure that the protective umbrella of the law is expansive enough to shelter every woman who requires its aid.

The author likely believes that the legal system:

In a landmark judgment, the Supreme Court of India, invoking Article 142 of the Constitution, authorised the medical termination of pregnancy for a 14-year-old rape survivor whose tragic circumstances had pushed her beyond the usual legal bounds. This decision underscores the Court's commitment to ensuring justice and compassion override rigid legislative frameworks when critical human rights are at stake. The girl, a minor from Maharashtra, found herself in a dire situation, carrying the burden of a pregnancy from a reprehensible act of sexual violence. Her ordeal was exacerbated by the fact that she discovered her condition only after the pregnancy had advanced beyond the typical legal limit for termination set at 24 weeks. This case highlights a critical gap between statutory provisions and the on-ground realities faced by survivors of sexual assault.

The Supreme Court's intervention came as a necessary rectification to a High Court decision that denied the young survivor the urgent medical relief she required. By setting aside this decision, the apex court did not merely facilitate a medical procedure; it upheld the fundamental rights to health, autonomy, and dignity of the minor, which are enshrined in the Constitution. Current restrictions under the Act often do not account for the complexities involved in cases of sexual violence, especially where the survivors are minors unaware of their condition until it is too late. India's judiciary has set a commendable precedent by prioritising the mental and physical well-being of a vulnerable young girl over the procedural strictures that could have gravely harmed her. However, the road ahead remains fraught with challenges. As the Court itself has noted, unsafe abortions are a leading cause of maternal mortality in India, and many women continue to face insurmountable barriers in accessing safe abortion services. This ruling should prompt a broader legislative and societal reflection on how our systems can better support and empower women, particularly those who find themselves in similarly vulnerable positions. It is high time for policymakers to heed this call and ensure that the protective umbrella of the law is expansive enough to shelter every woman who requires its aid.

How does the author structure the argument in the passage?

In a landmark judgment, the Supreme Court of India, invoking Article 142 of the Constitution, authorised the medical termination of pregnancy for a 14-year-old rape survivor whose tragic circumstances had pushed her beyond the usual legal bounds. This decision underscores the Court's commitment to ensuring justice and compassion override rigid legislative frameworks when critical human rights are at stake. The girl, a minor from Maharashtra, found herself in a dire situation, carrying the burden of a pregnancy from a reprehensible act of sexual violence. Her ordeal was exacerbated by the fact that she discovered her condition only after the pregnancy had advanced beyond the typical legal limit for termination set at 24 weeks. This case highlights a critical gap between statutory provisions and the on-ground realities faced by survivors of sexual assault.

The Supreme Court's intervention came as a necessary rectification to a High Court decision that denied the young survivor the urgent medical relief she required. By setting aside this decision, the apex court did not merely facilitate a medical procedure; it upheld the fundamental rights to health, autonomy, and dignity of the minor, which are enshrined in the Constitution. Current restrictions under the Act often do not account for the complexities involved in cases of sexual violence, especially where the survivors are minors unaware of their condition until it is too late. India's judiciary has set a commendable precedent by prioritising the mental and physical well-being of a vulnerable young girl over the procedural strictures that could have gravely harmed her. However, the road ahead remains fraught with challenges. As the Court itself has noted, unsafe abortions are a leading cause of maternal mortality in India, and many women continue to face insurmountable barriers in accessing safe abortion services. This ruling should prompt a broader legislative and societal reflection on how our systems can better support and empower women, particularly those who find themselves in similarly vulnerable positions. It is high time for policymakers to heed this call and ensure that the protective umbrella of the law is expansive enough to shelter every woman who requires its aid.

What is the author's tone when discussing the Supreme Court's decision?

In a landmark judgment, the Supreme Court of India, invoking Article 142 of the Constitution, authorised the medical termination of pregnancy for a 14-year-old rape survivor whose tragic circumstances had pushed her beyond the usual legal bounds. This decision underscores the Court's commitment to ensuring justice and compassion override rigid legislative frameworks when critical human rights are at stake. The girl, a minor from Maharashtra, found herself in a dire situation, carrying the burden of a pregnancy from a reprehensible act of sexual violence. Her ordeal was exacerbated by the fact that she discovered her condition only after the pregnancy had advanced beyond the typical legal limit for termination set at 24 weeks. This case highlights a critical gap between statutory provisions and the on-ground realities faced by survivors of sexual assault.

The Supreme Court's intervention came as a necessary rectification to a High Court decision that denied the young survivor the urgent medical relief she required. By setting aside this decision, the apex court did not merely facilitate a medical procedure; it upheld the fundamental rights to health, autonomy, and dignity of the minor, which are enshrined in the Constitution. Current restrictions under the Act often do not account for the complexities involved in cases of sexual violence, especially where the survivors are minors unaware of their condition until it is too late. India's judiciary has set a commendable precedent by prioritising the mental and physical well-being of a vulnerable young girl over the procedural strictures that could have gravely harmed her. However, the road ahead remains fraught with challenges. As the Court itself has noted, unsafe abortions are a leading cause of maternal mortality in India, and many women continue to face insurmountable barriers in accessing safe abortion services. This ruling should prompt a broader legislative and societal reflection on how our systems can better support and empower women, particularly those who find themselves in similarly vulnerable positions. It is high time for policymakers to heed this call and ensure that the protective umbrella of the law is expansive enough to shelter every woman who requires its aid.

What is the main theme of the passage?

In a landmark judgment, the Supreme Court of India, invoking Article 142 of the Constitution, authorised the medical termination of pregnancy for a 14-year-old rape survivor whose tragic circumstances had pushed her beyond the usual legal bounds. This decision underscores the Court's commitment to ensuring justice and compassion override rigid legislative frameworks when critical human rights are at stake. The girl, a minor from Maharashtra, found herself in a dire situation, carrying the burden of a pregnancy from a reprehensible act of sexual violence. Her ordeal was exacerbated by the fact that she discovered her condition only after the pregnancy had advanced beyond the typical legal limit for termination set at 24 weeks. This case highlights a critical gap between statutory provisions and the on-ground realities faced by survivors of sexual assault.

The Supreme Court's intervention came as a necessary rectification to a High Court decision that denied the young survivor the urgent medical relief she required. By setting aside this decision, the apex court did not merely facilitate a medical procedure; it upheld the fundamental rights to health, autonomy, and dignity of the minor, which are enshrined in the Constitution. Current restrictions under the Act often do not account for the complexities involved in cases of sexual violence, especially where the survivors are minors unaware of their condition until it is too late. India's judiciary has set a commendable precedent by prioritising the mental and physical well-being of a vulnerable young girl over the procedural strictures that could have gravely harmed her. However, the road ahead remains fraught with challenges. As the Court itself has noted, unsafe abortions are a leading cause of maternal mortality in India, and many women continue to face insurmountable barriers in accessing safe abortion services. This ruling should prompt a broader legislative and societal reflection on how our systems can better support and empower women, particularly those who find themselves in similarly vulnerable positions. It is high time for policymakers to heed this call and ensure that the protective umbrella of the law is expansive enough to shelter every woman who requires its aid.

In the passage, to whom does the pronoun 'her' refer in "denied the young survivor the urgent medical relief she required"?

In a landmark judgment, the Supreme Court of India, invoking Article 142 of the Constitution, authorised the medical termination of pregnancy for a 14-year-old rape survivor whose tragic circumstances had pushed her beyond the usual legal bounds. This decision underscores the Court's commitment to ensuring justice and compassion override rigid legislative frameworks when critical human rights are at stake. The girl, a minor from Maharashtra, found herself in a dire situation, carrying the burden of a pregnancy from a reprehensible act of sexual violence. Her ordeal was exacerbated by the fact that she discovered her condition only after the pregnancy had advanced beyond the typical legal limit for termination set at 24 weeks. This case highlights a critical gap between statutory provisions and the on-ground realities faced by survivors of sexual assault.

The Supreme Court's intervention came as a necessary rectification to a High Court decision that denied the young survivor the urgent medical relief she required. By setting aside this decision, the apex court did not merely facilitate a medical procedure; it upheld the fundamental rights to health, autonomy, and dignity of the minor, which are enshrined in the Constitution. Current restrictions under the Act often do not account for the complexities involved in cases of sexual violence, especially where the survivors are minors unaware of their condition until it is too late. India's judiciary has set a commendable precedent by prioritising the mental and physical well-being of a vulnerable young girl over the procedural strictures that could have gravely harmed her. However, the road ahead remains fraught with challenges. As the Court itself has noted, unsafe abortions are a leading cause of maternal mortality in India, and many women continue to face insurmountable barriers in accessing safe abortion services. This ruling should prompt a broader legislative and societal reflection on how our systems can better support and empower women, particularly those who find themselves in similarly vulnerable positions. It is high time for policymakers to heed this call and ensure that the protective umbrella of the law is expansive enough to shelter every woman who requires its aid.

In the context of the passage, what does the term 'exacerbated' most likely mean?

In a landmark judgment, the Supreme Court of India, invoking Article 142 of the Constitution, authorised the medical termination of pregnancy for a 14-year-old rape survivor whose tragic circumstances had pushed her beyond the usual legal bounds. This decision underscores the Court's commitment to ensuring justice and compassion override rigid legislative frameworks when critical human rights are at stake. The girl, a minor from Maharashtra, found herself in a dire situation, carrying the burden of a pregnancy from a reprehensible act of sexual violence. Her ordeal was exacerbated by the fact that she discovered her condition only after the pregnancy had advanced beyond the typical legal limit for termination set at 24 weeks. This case highlights a critical gap between statutory provisions and the on-ground realities faced by survivors of sexual assault.

The Supreme Court's intervention came as a necessary rectification to a High Court decision that denied the young survivor the urgent medical relief she required. By setting aside this decision, the apex court did not merely facilitate a medical procedure; it upheld the fundamental rights to health, autonomy, and dignity of the minor, which are enshrined in the Constitution. Current restrictions under the Act often do not account for the complexities involved in cases of sexual violence, especially where the survivors are minors unaware of their condition until it is too late. India's judiciary has set a commendable precedent by prioritising the mental and physical well-being of a vulnerable young girl over the procedural strictures that could have gravely harmed her. However, the road ahead remains fraught with challenges. As the Court itself has noted, unsafe abortions are a leading cause of maternal mortality in India, and many women continue to face insurmountable barriers in accessing safe abortion services. This ruling should prompt a broader legislative and societal reflection on how our systems can better support and empower women, particularly those who find themselves in similarly vulnerable positions. It is high time for policymakers to heed this call and ensure that the protective umbrella of the law is expansive enough to shelter every woman who requires its aid.

What can be inferred about the Supreme Court's view on the existing legislative framework concerning abortion?

In a landmark judgment, the Supreme Court of India, invoking Article 142 of the Constitution, authorised the medical termination of pregnancy for a 14-year-old rape survivor whose tragic circumstances had pushed her beyond the usual legal bounds. This decision underscores the Court's commitment to ensuring justice and compassion override rigid legislative frameworks when critical human rights are at stake. The girl, a minor from Maharashtra, found herself in a dire situation, carrying the burden of a pregnancy from a reprehensible act of sexual violence. Her ordeal was exacerbated by the fact that she discovered her condition only after the pregnancy had advanced beyond the typical legal limit for termination set at 24 weeks. This case highlights a critical gap between statutory provisions and the on-ground realities faced by survivors of sexual assault.

The Supreme Court's intervention came as a necessary rectification to a High Court decision that denied the young survivor the urgent medical relief she required. By setting aside this decision, the apex court did not merely facilitate a medical procedure; it upheld the fundamental rights to health, autonomy, and dignity of the minor, which are enshrined in the Constitution. Current restrictions under the Act often do not account for the complexities involved in cases of sexual violence, especially where the survivors are minors unaware of their condition until it is too late. India's judiciary has set a commendable precedent by prioritising the mental and physical well-being of a vulnerable young girl over the procedural strictures that could have gravely harmed her. However, the road ahead remains fraught with challenges. As the Court itself has noted, unsafe abortions are a leading cause of maternal mortality in India, and many women continue to face insurmountable barriers in accessing safe abortion services. This ruling should prompt a broader legislative and societal reflection on how our systems can better support and empower women, particularly those who find themselves in similarly vulnerable positions. It is high time for policymakers to heed this call and ensure that the protective umbrella of the law is expansive enough to shelter every woman who requires its aid.

Under which article of the Constitution did the Supreme Court of India authorize the medical termination of pregnancy for the 14-year-old rape survivor?