Abortion Can Be Allowed Where Continuing Pregnancy Would Cause Grave Mental Injury: Bombay High Court
The Bombay High Court has held that abortion can be allowed in cases where continuing pregnancy would cause grave mental injury to the pregnant woman. The division bench of Justice N.R. Borkar and Justice Somasekhar Sudaresan held that such allowance cannot be limited to pregnancy emanating from sexual assault. The 19 years old petitioner had approached the High Court seeking...
The Bombay High Court has held that abortion can be allowed in cases where continuing pregnancy would cause grave mental injury to the pregnant woman.
The division bench of Justice N.R. Borkar and Justice Somasekhar Sudaresan held that such allowance cannot be limited to pregnancy emanating from sexual assault.
The 19 years old petitioner had approached the High Court seeking permission to terminate her 25-weeks pregnancy which had resulted from a consensual relationship.
The Medical Board reported that there was no no congenital abnormality in the foetus but considering petitioner's socio-cultural and weak economic conditions, continuing the pregnancy could lead to grave psychological injury. It also submitted that petitioner was physically fit to undergo a medical termination of pregnancy and recommended termination.
The High Court perused Section 3(2)(b)(i) of the MTP Act, which allows termination by a registered medical practitioner if continuing the pregnancy would involve grave injury to the woman's physical or mental health. Explanation 2 to Section 3(2) provides a statutory presumption of grave injury to the mental health of the pregnant woman if the pregnancy resulted from rape. However, the High Court noted that a diagnosis of grave mental injury is not limited to cases of sexual assault.
The Court also considered Section 3(4)(b) of the MTP Act, which states that no pregnancy shall be terminated without the consent of the pregnant woman. To ensure the Petitioner's consent was informed, the High Court convened a meeting with her. The Petitioner confirmed understanding of the termination procedure and expressed her desire to terminate the pregnancy.
The High Court then concluded that the Petitioner's right to make an autonomous choice about her body should be upheld.
It referred to (Mother of X) Vs. State of Maharashtra and Anr., where the Supreme Court held that a pregnant person's health and consent are paramount in such cases. It was also highlighted that the decision to terminate a pregnancy is deeply personal, and intertwined with dignity, autonomy, and reproductive choice under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Consequently, the High Court permitted the Petitioner to undergo the termination procedure as soon as possible.
Case Title: X.Y.Z. vs The Dean of B.J., Government Medical College and Others
Case No.:Writ Petition No. 7745 of 2024
Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr Tejesh Dande
Advocate for the Respondents: Ms Purnima Awasthi (Respondent 2), Ms Kavita Solunke (State)