HC refuses woman permission to terminate 28-week pregnancy

Bombay High Court dismisses petition for termination of nearly 28-week pregnancy, highlighting societal stigma faced by unmarried women.

MUMBAI: The Bombay High Court on Monday expressed deep anguish over the societal stigma faced by women bearing children outside wedlock, while dismissing a petition by a 27-year-old woman from Thane seeking medical termination of her nearly 28-week pregnancy. The court highlighted the lack of a mechanism to ensure biological fathers share equal responsibility and social repercussions in such cases.

HT Image

“We do want to express our anguish for the difficult circumstances in which women such as the petitioner find themselves in, especially in the absence of any effective mechanism to ensure that the biological father shares equal pain, responsibility, societal reproach, and social castigation,” a bench of Justice AS Gadkari and Justice Neela Gokhale said.

The petitioner, currently undergoing a divorce and mother to a four-year-old daughter, became pregnant from a consensual relationship with a friend. She cited her poor mental and physical condition, financial struggles, and fear of social stigma as reasons for seeking termination. However, the court found these grounds insufficient under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy (Amendment) Act, 2021, and related guidelines.

A medical board constituted by Vitthal Sayanna Civil Hospital, Thane, concluded that the petitioner was not fit for termination, as the pregnancy had advanced well beyond the 24-week legal limit, and no gross abnormalities were detected in the foetus. “Since the pregnancy has advanced up to 27 weeks and one day (when the ultrasound sonography report was done), well beyond the legal limits of termination of pregnancy i.e., 24 weeks, the petitioner is not fit for termination of pregnancy at this stage,” the court noted.

Despite acknowledging the petitioner’s right to reproductive freedom and bodily autonomy, the court emphasised its limited jurisdiction and legislative constraints. “Our judicial conscience does not permit us to grant permission to the petitioner to medically terminate the pregnancy at this stage. Permission is accordingly denied,” the court concluded.

To address the petitioner’s fears of social stigma and her economic situation, the court directed that if the baby is born alive and the petitioner wishes to give the child up for adoption, the state and its agencies should provide the necessary neonatal care and facilitate the child’s adoption or placement in foster care, following legal processes.

The petition was dismissed, with the court expressing hope that the government implents proactive measures to address such complex issues in the future.