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.

JUDGMENT :

Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, CJI.

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:

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 pe