HC rejects unwed woman’s plea to terminate advanced pregnancy

A division bench of chief justice Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and justice Advait Sethna refused relief to the woman due to the advanced stage of pregnancy and a medical board’s opinion that the foetus was likely to be born alive if the pregnancy was terminated at this stage

MUMBAI: The Bombay High Court on Tuesday rejected a petition by a 24-year-old unmarried woman seeking permission to terminate her unwanted pregnancy, which was in its 29th week.

A division bench of chief justice Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and justice Advait Sethna refused relief to the woman due to the advanced stage of pregnancy and a medical board’s opinion that the foetus was likely to be born alive if the pregnancy was terminated at this stage. (HT Photo)

A division bench of chief justice Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and justice Advait Sethna refused relief to the woman due to the advanced stage of pregnancy and a medical board’s opinion that the foetus was likely to be born alive if the pregnancy was terminated at this stage.

The woman approached the court on October 29, after her pregnancy had crossed the 24-week limit prescribed under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy (MTP) Act. The court directed a medical board at Grant Government Medical College and Sir JJ Group of Hospitals to examine her and submit a report.

Following the examination, the board recommended continuing the pregnancy to full term, saying the foetus was healthy and without any congenital anomalies. If the pregnancy was terminated at such a belated stage, there was a strong possibility of the foetus being born alive and likely to be affected by complications due to its premature birth, it added.

However, the woman’s lawyer, Meenaz Kakalia, urged the court to overrule the medical board’s opinion. She argued that the petitioner was a 24-year-old unmarried woman, and carrying the pregnancy to its full term would have grave and far-reaching consequences on her mental and emotional well-being, financial security, livelihood and future. Kakalia also cited a Supreme Court judgement recognising a woman’s right to bodily integrity as an important facet of her right to privacy.

The bench, however, said that the apex court ruling cannot extend beyond the statutory framework and that its applicability must be examined on the facts and circumstances of each case.

Observing that the MTP Act permits the termination of “certain pregnancies” and “not all pregnancies”, the bench said there was no medical necessity to terminate the pregnancy in the absence of any foetal abnormality.

Rejecting the woman’s petition, the court also considered the fact that the state authorities were willing to extend all support if the woman wanted to give the child up for adoption.