Important Points:
The Court, as well as the Legislature, are slowly moving in the direction of removing the gestational limit prescribed under Section 3 of the Act in cases where foetal abnormalities are detected.

JUDGMENT :

An anguished couple is knocking at the doors of this Court seeking permission to terminate the pregnancy of the 1st petitioner, which has gone beyond the gestational limit of 20 weeks prescribed under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act 1971.

2. According to the petitioners, though they were overjoyed on realising that the 1st petitioner has conceived for the second time, with the last menstrual date as 18-11-2019,

they had the shock of their rives when the scan conducted on 20-4-2020, suggested several anomalies for the growing foetus. The report indicated that due to lack of amniotic fluid - a condition medically known as Oligohydramnios, foetal organs could not be visualised. The scan report suspected a condition called bilateral Renal Angenesis, which in common parlance means absence of both kidneys and she was referred to the SAT Hospital Thiruvananthepurern, With the referral report issued by the Holy Cross Hospital, Adoor and the records, petitioners rushed to Sree Avittam Thirunal Hospital and Medica1 College at Thiruvanathapuram. After detailed assessment, the doctors at SAT hospital confirmed the findings recorded by the referring hospital. It was however informed that since the gestational age of the foetus, as per the last menstrual day, had reached 23 weeks, termination of pregnancy could not be carried out, legally. 1st petitioner was advised to continue her pregnancy. it was also informed that since there was possibility of miscarriage or still birth, appropriate precautions must be taken to avoid mishaps to the mother. Unable to comprehend the agonising news, 1st petitioner subjected herself to yet another scan on 22-04-2020 at another hospital. The report of the said scan was also no different from the earlier one.

3. Instead of lamenting or brooding over the predicament that had befallen the petitioners, they acted adroitly and moved this Court in its vacation sitting through video conferencing on 28-4-2020. On being apprised of the factual situation, this Court directed the constitution of a Medical Board on the next day itself, so as to assess the condition of the petitioner and to report to this Court by today. The learned Government Pleader Adv. Sri. K.P Harish was directed to inform the Superintendent of the Medical College Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram, since the action, if any, required to be taken was wholly time bound.

4. in deference to the directions of this Court, a Medical Board was constituted by the 3rd respondent consisting of 7 reputed doctors, including himself. After an assessment of the 1st petitioner's foetus, a report dated 29-4-2020, was placed for consideration of this Court. While the Paediatric Neurologist reported the presence of an open spinal defect on the foetus, the paediatric nephrologist confirmed the finding of bilateral Renal Agenesis (absence of both kidneys) and stated that the said condition is not compatible with post natal life. The Psychiatrist in the Medical Board discussed and explained to the 1st petitioner the procedure required and the precautions that may be necessary even in respect of future pregnancies. The Medical Report however states that, since the pregnancy has advanced to 23 weeks, the risks associated with the termination of pregnancy will be very high with high chance of obstetric haemorrhage and subsequent problems.

5. I have heard the learned counsel Adv. Sri. Manu Ramachandran and the learned Government Pleader Adv. Sri KP. Harish, through video conferencing,

6. It is evident from the ultrasound scan and the reports of all doctors that the foetus suffers from severe abnormalities. However, it is pointed out that law permits termination of pregnancy only up to the gestational period of 20 weeks. Since the foetus of the 1st petitioner has reached a gestational age of 23 weeks, it is medically advised that termination would involve- high risk though the nature- of foetus is not compatible with post natal life.

7. This Court is confronted with a