Bombay High Court: In a writ petition before the Division Bench of A.S. Gadkari and Dr. Neela Gokhale*, JJ., a 24-weeks pregnant woman suffering from pancreatic cancer sought the permission of the Court to medically terminate her pregnancy, the sustenance of which was keeping her from undergoing palliative chemotherapy treatment. In pursuance of its previous order dated 01-07-2024, wherein the Court had directed the King Edward Memorial Hospital, Mumbai to constitute a Medical Board to report on the risks associated with the same, the Division Bench permitted the medical termination of the petitioner’s pregnancy after consideration of the medical opinions and report, and taking note of her agony and rights.
Background
The petitioner was 24 weeks pregnant and undergoing cancer treatment and sought the termination of her pregnancy for the same reason. The instant Court vide its order dated 01-07-2024, directed the hospital where she was undergoing treatment, to constitute a Medical Board in terms of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy (Amendment) Act, 2021 to examine her, and submit a report to the Court.
Upon examination by the Medical Board, it was concluded that she was unfit to undergo palliative chemotherapy for her stage-4 pancreatic cancer due to her pregnancy. Further, it was determined that the termination of her pregnancy would not positively affect her long-term survival, and her condition was fatal even if she were to undergo chemotherapy. Due to her anaemia, she would have required to build blood before delivery.
The report suggested that if the pregnancy was to be terminated at 26 weeks, the baby may be born alive. However, the report also mentioned the Neonatological Guidelines that provide for the obligations of the parents and the hospital management in instances of survival or death of neo-natal persons.
The report concluded that the median survival of the petitioner was in between six to twelve months.
Court’s decision
The Court noted the petitioner’s statement of miserable suffering and unbearable pain, and that palliative treatment might help her live longer and comfortably. The Court also noted her right to reproductive freedom, the autonomy over her body, and her right to choice.
Considering the Medical Board’s report, the opinions of doctors, and the wishes of the petitioner, the Court permitted her to medically terminate her pregnancy, and stated:
-
The concerned doctors were to determine the appropriate time to perform the termination of pregnancy
-
If the baby is born alive, they must be provided neonatal care at the hospital
-
If the petitioners decide to give the child up for adoption post-delivery, then the State shall assume the child’s responsibility to rehabilitate the child
The Court however, clarified that the statements of the Court shall not be construed as binding directions on the petitioners, and the State shall abide by the petitioners’ wishes. The Court lastly granted immunity to the Medical Board from any medico-legal liability towards their opinion.
[XYZ v. State of Maharashtra, 2024 SCC OnLine Bom 2021, decided on 03-07-2024]
*Judgment pronounced by: Dr. Justice Neela Gokhale
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Petitioners: Manisha Devkar, Advocate
For the Respondent: Anamika Malhotra, Additional Public Prosecutor
