The Medical Termination Act 1971 authorizes termination of pregnancy up to 20 weeks (Section 3(2)). The petitioner in this case, Meera Santosh Pal, sought directions under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution to allow her to undergo a medical termination of her pregnancy. By the time the petition was admitted in Court, Ms. Pal was in the 24th week of her pregnancy. Ms. Pal had learnt that she was carrying a pregnancy with anencephaly, a condition where the fetal skull, brain, and head is undeveloped. Such a condition is untreatable and is fatal either during or very shortly after birth. The condition is also one which can endanger the life of the pregnant woman. Ms. Pal had the support of her husband in her petition to terminate the pregnancy.
The Court ordered Ms. Pal to be examined by a medical board consisting of seven doctors. Ms. Pal was in her 24th week of pregnancy when the examination took place. The examination confirmed the diagnosis of the fetus and that it would not be able to survive outside of the uterus. Ms. Pal also underwent a psychiatric evaluation that determined that she was coherent, of average intelligence, and with good comprehension. The report further highlighted the risk to Ms. Pal, both physically and mentally, if the pregnancy continued.
The Court allowed the petition for a termination under Section 3(2)(i) of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act 1971, recognizing the foreseeable threat to the petitioner’s life and physical and mental health. The Court further noted that there was no point in allowing the pregnancy to continue, as it was clear that the fetus would not be able to survive outside of the uterus.
In reaching this decision, the Court invoked the precedent set in Suchita Srivastava and Anr. v. Chandigarh Administration [(2009) 9 SCC 1], which recognized that “a woman’s right to make reproductive choices is also a dimension of ‘personal liberty’ as understood under Article 21 of the Constitution,” and that such choices include both the decision to procreate as well as to abstain from procreating.
In particular, the Court emphasized that the right to bodily integrity and consent of the petitioner were crucial considerations and that the petitioner “has a right to take all such steps as necessary to preserve her own life against the avoidable danger to it.” The Court further emphasized that she had made an informed choice and that this choice was within the limits of reproductive autonomy.
There was no opposition on any grounds to Ms. Pal’s petition and the Court ordered the termination to be carried out under the supervision of the medical board.