Blog

Case title: A (mother of X) v. State of Maharashtra and Anr

Case no: Civil Appeal No. 5194 of 2024

Dated on: April 29th, 2024

Quorum: Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J B Pardiwala, Manoj Misra.

Facts of the case:

This appeal arises from the judgement of a division bench of the High court judicature at Mumbai dated 4th April 2024. It basically denied the minor from terminating her pregnancy. ‘X’ is a minor around 14 years old and has been alleged of a sexual assault in September 2023. ‘X’ revealed this on 20thMarch 2024 by then she was 25 weeks into her pregnancy. It was said that ‘X’ always had irregular periods and could not have assessed her pregnancy earlier. ‘X’ was taken to a hospital on 21 March 2024 for medical examination and then transferred to the JJ Group of Hospitals, Mumbai for termination of her pregnancy. On 28 March 2024 the Medical Board constituted under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act 1971 opined that ‘X’ was physically and mentally fit for termination of her pregnancy subject to the permission of the High Court. The Appellant moved to the High Court of Judicature at Bombay under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking the termination of pregnancy of her daughter. On 3rd April 2024, the Medical Board issued a ‘clarificatory’ opinion, without re-examining ‘X’. The report denied the termination of pregnancy on the ground that the gestational age of the foetus was twenty-seven to twenty-eight weeks and that there were no congenital abnormalities in the foetus. By the impugned judgment the High Court dismissed the writ petition on the ground that the pregnancy exceeded the statutory period of twenty-four weeks. In the present appeal, it was observed that the medical report does not contain evaluation of the physical and mental status of the minor, having regard to the background leading up to the pregnancy. The Medical Board was directed to apprise as to whether carrying the pregnancy to the full term would impact the physical and mental well-being of the minor who is barely fourteen years old. The minor was examined by a team of six doctors who after examining ‘X’, opined that the gestational age of the foetus was 29.6 weeks and continuation of pregnancy will negatively impact the physical and mental well-being of ‘X’.

Issues:

Whether carrying of the pregnancy to the full term would impact upon the physical and mental well-being of the minor who is barely 14 years?

Legal provisions:

Section 376 of IPC- Punishment of Rape. 
Sections 4 of the POCSO Act- This section deals with penetrative sexual assault on a child. 
Section 8 of the POCSO Act- Punishment for sexual assault. 
Section 12 of the POCSO Act- Punishment for sexual harassment.

Contentions of the appellant:

The appellant had moved High Court initially to permit them to terminate the pregnancy. Upon denial by the Hight Court, an appeal was preferred under 136 of the Constitution. The medical team reported that while initially the parents were agreeable to the stoppage of the foetal heart on 24 April 2024, on 25 April 2024 the appellant stated that she desires that the pregnancy be taken to term and that she would thereafter give the child in adoption.

Courts analysis and Judgement:

In X v. State (NCT of Delhi), it was recognized that the fear of prosecution among registered medical practitioners is a barrier for pregnant persons to access safe and legal abortions. The purpose of the opinion of the RMP bears the legislative intent of the MTP Act which is to protect the health of a pregnant person and facilitate safe, hygienic, and legal abortion. The right to abortion is to protect right of dignity, autonomy and reproductive choice and this right is guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.   The court in XYZ v. State of Gujarat,11 held that the medical board or the High Court cannot refuse abortion merely on the ground that the gestational age of the pregnancy is above the statutory prescription. The powers vested under the Constitution in the High Court and this Court allow them to enforce fundamental rights guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution. When a person approaches the court for permission to terminate a pregnancy, the court apply their mind to the case and make a decision to protect the physical and mental health of the pregnant person. In Suchita Srivastava v. Chandigarh Admn.14, a three-judge Bench of this Court has held that the right to make reproductive choices is a facet of Article 21 of the Constitution. The right to choose and reproductive freedom is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution, the court must regard the view of the pregnant person as an important factor while deciding the termination of the pregnancy. In the present case view of ‘X’ and her parents to take the pregnancy to term are in unison.  In the facts and circumstances the following directions are issued: (i) All the expenses in regard to the hospitalization of the minor in respect of her delivery to be borne by the Hospital (ii) In the event that the minor and her parents desire to give the child in adoption, the State Government to take all necessary steps to facilitate this exercise.  The Court concludes as follows: (i) The MTP Act protects the RMP and the medical boards when an opinion is formed in good faith regarding termination of pregnancy; (ii) The medical board opinion must not be restricted to the criteria under Section 3(2-B) of the MTP Act but should consider the physical and emotional well-being of the pregnant person (iii) When issuing a clarificatory opinion the medical board to support with reasons for change in opinion and circumstances; and (iv)The consent of a pregnant person in decisions of reproductive autonomy and termination of pregnancy is paramount. In case there is a difference of opinion between the pregnant person and her guardian, the opinion of the minor or mentally ill pregnant person must be taken into consideration to enable the court to arrive at a conclusion. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of. 

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a national award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer”.

Judgement reviewed by- Parvathy P.V.

Click here to read the judgement