Married Woman Seeks Termination Of 24-Week Pregnancy Of 3rd Child Citing Health Conditions; Supreme Court Directs Medical Examination

The Supreme Court on Thursday (05.10.2023) while considering a plea for medical termination of pregnancy of a married woman who is beyond 24 weeks pregnant, orally remarked that if such a plea is allowed it will open the doors of the Supreme Court to parents who get ‘cold feet’ in the last minute.

The petitioner, who is a mother of two children, told the Apex Court that she is suffering from Lactational Amenorrhea and post-partum depression and so the couple is not in a position to raise a third child.

A bench of Justice Hima Kohli and Justice BV Nagarathna while issuing notice in the plea, directed a medical board to be constituted by AIIMS to assess the medical condition of the petitioner. The petitioner has been asked to be present before the medical board tomorrow (06.10.2023) and the matter has been posted for further consideration on Monday (09.10.2023).

While hearing the plea, the Bench initially expressed its disinclination to entertain the plea noting that the conception was voluntary. The Court said that there is a stark distinction between a forced pregnancy as a result of assault and a voluntary pregnancy. “Here the child is born within the marriage, they have voluntarily conceived the child and suddenly the parents get cold feet. What do you do in such circumstances?” Justice Nagarathna asked the counsel for the petitioner.

Explaining why the petitioner was constrained to approach the Apex Court, her counsel said that she came to know of her pregnancy belatedly. The Court questioned the petitioner as to why she did not realise that she might be pregnant after 5 months of missing her period.

“A married lady, with 2 children, misses her period and she doesn’t notice that something was wrong? 5 months the lady did not realise that she missed her period? How can we open our doors that wide? Look at larger picture. We owe a duty to law, the state and to that life. She and her husband should have been cautious, not just her. We’re talking about precious life here,” Justice Hima Kohli said.

The Counsel for the petitioner informed the Court that since she is under psychiatric treatment and taking medication, she apprehends that the child born may not be ‘normal’. However, the Court said that from the medical records produced before it, the scans did not show any anomaly.

The Court also questioned the Petitioner as to why she did not approach the Delhi High Court under Art. 226. “Imagine someone from Kerala of Karnataka coming straight to the Supreme Court under Art. 32 for this?” Justice Nagarathna said. ‘You are taking advantage of the fact that you are in Delhi,’ Justice Hima Kohli added.