1. Petition for medical termination of pregnancy beyond statutory limits on grounds of mental health and socio-economic conditions under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act. (Para 2 , 3 )
Back
Next 
2023 Supreme(SC) 1045
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD, CJI., J.B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRA, JJ.
X – Appellant
Versus
Union of India and Anr. - Respondents
Miscellaneous Application No. 2157 of 2023 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1137 of 2023
Decided on : 16-10-2023
Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Dr. Amit Mishra, Adv. Mr. Rahul Sharma, AOR Mrs. Uzma Ashraf, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, ASG Mr. Gurmeet Singh Makker, AOR Ms. Rukhmini Bobde, Adv. Ms. Sthavi Asthana, Adv. Abhijeet Singh, Adv. Ms. Ameyavikrama Thanvi, Adv. Ms. Poornima Singh, Adv. Ms. Manisha Chava, Adv. Ms. B.L.N. Shivani, Adv. Ms. Shagun Thakur, Adv. Ms. Chitrangda Rastravara, Adv. Mr. Rustam Singh Chauhan, Adv. Mr. Nithin Chowdhary Pavuluri, Adv. Ms. Anupriya Srivastava, Adv. Ms. Shivika Mehra, Adv. Mr. Ketan Paul, Adv. Mr. Ashwin Joseph, Adv. Mr. Pratham Sagar, Adv. Ms. Anuradha Arputham, Adv. Mr. Anirudh Singh, Adv. Mr. Manvendra Singh, Adv. Ms. Shreya Jain, Adv.
For the Petitioner(s): Dr. Amit Mishra, Adv. Mr. Rahul Sharma, AOR Mrs. Uzma Ashraf, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, ASG Mr. Gurmeet Singh Makker, AOR Ms. Rukhmini Bobde, Adv. Ms. Sthavi Asthana, Adv. Abhijeet Singh, Adv. Ms. Ameyavikrama Thanvi, Adv. Ms. Poornima Singh, Adv. Ms. Manisha Chava, Adv. Ms. B.L.N. Shivani, Adv. Ms. Shagun Thakur, Adv. Ms. Chitrangda Rastravara, Adv. Mr. Rustam Singh Chauhan, Adv. Mr. Nithin Chowdhary Pavuluri, Adv. Ms. Anupriya Srivastava, Adv. Ms. Shivika Mehra, Adv. Mr. Ketan Paul, Adv. Mr. Ashwin Joseph, Adv. Mr. Pratham Sagar, Adv. Ms. Anuradha Arputham, Adv. Mr. Anirudh Singh, Adv. Mr. Manvendra Singh, Adv. Ms. Shreya Jain, Adv.
Important Points
The main legal point established in the judgment is the limitation on medical termination of pregnancy beyond twenty-four weeks as per the MTP Act and the Court's discretionary power under Article 142 of the Constitution to do complete justice in exceptional circumstances.
Subject
Civil Law - Medical Law
Act Referred
Headnote
Medical Termination of Pregnancy - Jurisdiction of the Court - MTP Act 1971, Section 3, Section 5, Rule 3B - The judgment discusses the jurisdiction of the court to hear the case and the decision on the prayer for medical termination of pregnancy. It highlights the provisions of the MTP Act, including the conditions for termination of pregnancy, the role of Medical Board, and the limitations on termination beyond twenty-four weeks.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a married woman, sought permission for medical termination of her pregnancy due to post-partum depression and family circumstances. The Court allowed the termination initially, but subsequent developments led to a split verdict and a three-judge Bench hearing.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the termination of pregnancy beyond twenty-four weeks was not permissible under the MTP Act. It declined the prayer for termination but directed AIIMS to conduct the delivery, with the Union Government undertaking to cover the medical costs. The Court also allowed the application for recall of the previous order.
Issues: The issues involved the jurisdiction of the Court to hear the case and the permissibility of the medical termination of pregnancy beyond twenty-four weeks.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court emphasized the limitations on termination beyond twenty-four weeks as per the MTP Act and the role of the Medical Board in assessing foetal abnormalities. It also highlighted the Court's power under Article 142 of the Constitution to do complete justice in exceptional circumstances.
Final Decision: The Court declined the prayer for medical termination of pregnancy beyond twenty-four weeks but directed AIIMS to conduct the delivery, with the Union Government undertaking to cover the medical costs. The application for recall of the previous order was allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Petitioner seeks termination due to postpartum depression and financial constraints — Union of India seeks recall based on fetal viability and medical risks. (Para 3 , 5 )
3. Article 142 permits relaxing law for complete justice, but statutory limits for termination beyond 24 weeks require fetal abnormalities or life-threatening risks to the mother. (Para 21 , 22 , 24 )
4. Medical termination of pregnancy beyond 24 weeks is permissible only upon diagnosis of substantial fetal abnormalities or where immediately necessary to save the pregnant woman's life. (Para 24 )
5. Application for recall of previous order allowed and prayer for medical termination of pregnancy denied. (Para 26 , 29 )
6. Under what circumstances can the Supreme Court exercise its jurisdiction under Article 142 to relax the application of law?
The Court may exercise this power to do complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it, relaxing the application of law based on the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. (Para 21 , 22 )
7. What are the legal requirements for the medical termination of a pregnancy that has exceeded twenty-four weeks?
Termination beyond 24 weeks is permitted if there are substantial fetal abnormalities diagnosed by a Medical Board under Section 3(2B) or if it is immediately necessary to save the life of the pregnant woman under Section 5. (Para 16 , 17 , 24 )
8. When can an application for the recall of a judgment or order be entertained by the Supreme Court?
Recall applications are generally not entertained except in exceptional circumstances, such as when a directly affected party was not served with notice, as the standard remedy is a Review Petition. (Para 19 , 20 )
JUDGMENT :
Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, CJI.
| Table of Contents | |
| A. Facts and procedural history | |
| B. The medical termination of pregnancies | |
| C. Analysis | |
| i. The jurisdiction of this Court to hear this case | |
| ii. Decision on the prayer | |
A. Facts and procedural history
1. The Registry is directed to anonymize the name of the petitioner in this judgment, all orders that have been passed as well as in the records which are publicly available.
2. The petitioner is a married woman of twenty-seven years. She and her husband have two children, the younger of which is about one year old. She filed the petition under Article 32 for directions to the respondents to permit a medical termination of her ongoing pregnancy. The petitioner states that she did not discover that she was pregnant until after twenty weeks of the pregnancy had elapsed because she had lactational amenorrhea. As a result of lactational amenorrhea, women who are breastfeeding do not menstruate. She therefore did not realize that the absence of menstruation was indicative of pregnancy. The petitioner states that she visited the gynaecologist for the first time after the delivery of her second child because she was feeling weak, nauseous, dizzy and experiencing abdominal discomfort. She underwent an ultrasound scan, upon which she realized that she was pregnant. The pregnancy was estimated to be around twenty-four weeks at that time.
3. The petitioner avers that she and her husband attempted to medically terminate the pregnancy at various hospitals but that they were unable to because of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act 19711[“MTP Act”] read with the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Rules 20032[“MTP Rules”] (as amended in 2021). She therefore approached this Court by invoking its writ jurisdiction. She sought permission for the medical termination of her pregnancy on the following grounds:
a. She suffers from post-partum depression and her mental condition does not permit her to raise another child; and
b. Her husband is the only earning member of their family and they already have two children to care for. Additionally, they have other family members who depend on them.
4. The matter was listed before a two-Judge Bench comprising Hima Kohli, J. and B V Nagarathna, J. on 5 October 2023. On the same day, the Bench directed the petitioner to appear before a Medical Board constituted by the All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi. 3[“AIIMS”] The report submitted to this Court by the Medical Board is extracted below:
“Details of the woman seeking termination of pregnancy:
1. …
2. Age : 27 years.
3. Registration/Case Number: UHID – 107060237.
4. Additional review done at AIIMS:
| S.No. | Investigations done | Key finding |
| 1 | Ultrasound done at AIIMS on 20.09.2023 | Ultrasonography suggest: Single live intra uterine fetus of 25 weeks 5 days POG. Estimated Fetal Weight – 886 gm. Placenta upper segment. |
5. Opinion by Medical Board for termination of pregnancy:
(a) Allowed (X)
(b) Denied ( )
Justification for the decision:
The case has been reviewed by the medical board. The weight of the baby by the scan done on 06/10/2023 is 886gm with gestational age of 25 weeks 5 days.
As per the current status, the baby is viable and has a reasonable chance of survival.
The chances of post partum psychosis of which the couple is worried of, are present even at this gestation following delivery.
The mother is a previous 2 LSCS and the chances of complications due to hysterotomy are there at this gestation.
In such a scenario, the termination of pregnancy may be reconsidered.
The option of antenatal care and delivery at AIIMS, New Delhi has been discussed with the couple.
6. Physical fitness of the woman for the termination of pregnancy:
(a) Yes ( )
(b) No ( ) ”
By its order dated 9 October 2023, this Court allowed the petition and permitted the medical termination of the pregnancy on the ground that continuing with the pregnancy could se
