Bombay High Court allows termination of 33-week-old pregnancy; says woman has right to choose termination, not medical board

The Bombay High Court last week permitted termination of a 33-week-old pregnancy of a married woman after rejecting the recommendation of the medical board which had advised against termination on the ground of the length of the pregnancy [ABC v. State of Maharashtra & Anr.]. .A division bench of Justices GS Patel and SG Dige observed that the petitioner, an adult married woman, had taken an informed decision and it was her right to choose whether to terminate the foetus or go ahead with the pregnancy. “The petitioner takes an informed decision. It is not an easy one. But that decision is hers, and hers alone to make, once the conditions in the statute are met. The right to choose is the petitioner’s. It is not the right of the Medical Board. And it is also not the right of the court to abrogate the petitioner’s rights once they are found to fall within the contemplation of the law,” the Bench held. .Refusing the plea for termination would amount to denial of right to dignity to the pregnant woman, the Court underlined.“In refusing termination only on the ground of delay, this court would not only be condemning the foetus to a less than optimal life but would also be condemning the mother to future that will almost certainly rob her of every positive attribute of parenthood. It would be a denial of her right to dignity, and her reproductive and decisional autonomy,” the 23-page order stated..Advocate Aditi Saxena, appearing for the petitioner, vehemently submitted that termination of late pregnancy beyond 24 weeks was not absolutely prohibited. She sought court’s intervention as the statute was silent on what is to happen if late in the pregnancy a foetal abnormality is detected.She further highlighted that the medical board had indeed conceded that the foetus was suffering from abnormalities but had advised against termination on the ground that it was an advanced stage of pregnancy. .The High Court, however, could not agree with the report as it was silent on the questions raised by the petitioner. “The Medical Board report addresses itself to medical interventions, the availability of incessant and ongoing treatments and nothing more. It does not take into account the social and economic position of the Petitioner and her husband. It does not even attempt to envision the kind of life — one with no quality at all to speak of — that the Petitioner must endure for an indefinite future if the Board’s recommendation is to be followed. The Board really does only one thing: because late, therefore no. And that is plainly wrong, as we have seen. Given a severe foetal abnormality, the length of the pregnancy does not matter,” the Court underscored. .The Court in conclusion also appreciated the restraint shown by additional government pleader VM Mali.“His only duty, he submits, is to bring to the notice of the Court that a certain procedure needs to be followed. His second duty is of course to assure the Court that the Petitioner will get whatever support she needs from the hospital. There will be no compromise in that regard. We express our appreciation of the stand he takes,” the Court said while allowing the plea for termination. .Recently, the Delhi High Court had allowed termination of a 33-week-old pregnancy, stating that the choice of the mother in such cases is ultimate and final. .[Read Order]