Bombay High Court: In a writ petition filed a pregnant woman seeking permission for termination of her pregnancy at twenty-five-week, the Division Bench of N.R. Borkar and Somasekhar Sundaesan, JJ., permitted the petitioner to undergo the termination procedure at the earliest, and the petitioner should be entitled to present herself to the Sassoon Hospital for undergoing the procedures for termination of the pregnancy. Considering the grave danger to the petitioner’s mental health posed by the continuation of pregnancy, the Court stated that it was sure the Sassoon General Hospital, Pune and its Medical Board would take care to ensure sensitive treatment and handling of the petitioner in connection with all procedures, whether medical or administrative, keeping her emotional and mental health at the forefront.
Background:
In the instant case, the petitioner was from the lower income group and stated that grave psychological effect of the pregnancy and social stigma were the primary reasons for which she desired to terminate the pregnancy.The petitioner further contended that if the pregnancy was not terminated, then she would put her child up for adoption through government agencies in accordance with law. Moreover, she argued that she was just above nineteen years of age and continuation of the pregnancy might run the risk of maternal mortality.
Decision:
The Court noted that the Medical Board’s report suggested that petitioner was physically fit for undertaking medical termination pregnancy. Therefore, it was the psychological status of the petitioner that was at the heart of the matter. The report also indicated that a child born despite a termination procedure, would run a high possibility of immediate and long term physical and mental disability, which would seriously jeopardize the quality of life of the child.
The Court stated that considering the explicit finding of grave psychological injury from the continuation of her pregnancy and the fact that the petitioner was physically fit to undergo the process of termination, it appeared that petitioner’s sovereign entitlement to make an autonomous choice about her body and to exercise it in the form of opting for medical termination, lends itself to acceptance.
The Court observed that the petitioner was fully aware of the fetus having a heartbeat and was also firmly desirous of terminating the pregnancy, after being made aware of the procedure to be adopted. The Court referred to the case of A v. State of Maharashtra, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 835 and opined that it was clear that the congenital abnormalities in the fetus was not a pivotal determinative factor for a decision in cases where the pregnancy was beyond twenty-four weeks.
Further, regarding the respondent submission that the partner in causation of the pregnancy would have a stake in the decision, the Court relied on A v. State of Maharashtra, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 835 and opined that the partner was not a stakeholder in the choice of exercise of reproductive right by the pregnant person i.e. the choice of whether to terminate or continue with the pregnancy.
The Court stated that as per the medical board’s report, the petitioner should be entitled to call upon the B.J. Government Medical College and Sassoon General Hospital, Pune, to carry out the procedures for termination of her pregnancy. Further, the Court stated that the petitioner was an adult and was entitled to her sovereign decisions for reproductive autonomy, the views of her parents or of her partner were not relevant.
Since the petitioner was exposed to risk of grave psychological injury and was physically fit for termination of pregnancy, the Court permitted the petitioner to undergo the termination procedure at the earliest, and the petitioner should be entitled to present herself to the Sassoon Hospital for undergoing the procedures for termination of the pregnancy. Considering the grave danger to the petitioner’s mental health posed by the continuation of pregnancy, the Court stated that it was sure the Sassoon Hospital and its Medical Board would take care to ensure sensitive treatment and handling of the petitioner in connection with all procedures, whether medical or administrative, keeping her emotional and mental health at the forefront.
[X.Y.Z v. B.J. Government Medical College and Sassoon Hospital, Writ Petition No. 7745 of 2024, Order dated 30-05-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Petitioner: Tejesh Dande, Advocate
For the Respondents: Purnima Awasthi, Advocate and Kavita Solunke, AGP
