Bombay High Court Permits Medical Termination Of 25-Week Pregnancy | Recognizes Woman’s Mental Health And Reproductive Autonomy Under Article 21
Isabella Mariam
The High Court of Judicature at Bombay Division Bench of Justice Revati Mohite Dere and Justice Dr. Neela Gokhale permitted a 31-year-old woman to medically terminate her 25-week pregnancy. The Court issued this directive after assessing the petitioner’s mental state, personal autonomy, and the opinion of a Medical Board constituted under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act. While acknowledging the absence of statutory medical grounds under the MTP Act, the Court held that the petitioner’s psychological anguish and social circumstances justified intervention to protect her reproductive rights and mental well-being.
The petitioner, a 31-year-old adult woman, approached the High Court seeking permission to medically terminate her pregnancy, which had reached 25 weeks of gestation. According to her affidavit, the pregnancy was the result of contraceptive failure during a consensual relationship. The petitioner submitted that she had since separated from her partner and did not wish to continue the pregnancy due to emotional, financial, and familial constraints.
Pursuant to the petitioner’s plea, the Court, by an earlier order dated 13th June 2025, directed the Dean of Sir J. J. Group of Hospitals, Mumbai, to constitute a Medical Board in terms of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy (Amendment) Act, 2021, and relevant rules. The petitioner underwent medical evaluation under Rule 3A(b)(ii) of the MTP Rules.
The Medical Board submitted a report dated 17th June 2025, which was taken on record and marked as ‘X’. It confirmed that the petitioner was physically fit to undergo the medical termination of pregnancy. The report noted that the fetus was between 24 to 25 weeks gestation with no detectable congenital anomalies and that the petitioner had no active illnesses. The psychiatric evaluation acknowledged her history of alcohol and tobacco use, past surgeries, and symptoms of sadness and stress but found her mentally competent to make decisions regarding the pregnancy.
The Medical Board clarified that while there was no certified risk to the petitioner’s life or health, the procedure could be undertaken in a tertiary care institution, considering her expressed distress and social situation. It was noted that although there was no conclusive evidence of fetal harm from her earlier substance use, it could not be ruled out entirely.
The petitioner’s counsel, Ms. Nikita Raje, submitted that her client lacked both familial and emotional support. The petitioner’s parents were unaware of the pregnancy, and the partner had withdrawn any form of assistance. Ms. Raje argued that continuing the pregnancy would result in grave psychological trauma and mental injury to her client.
On the other hand, the learned Assistant Government Pleader, Ms. M. P. Thakur, appearing for the State, argued that the pregnancy was the result of a consensual relationship and that there was no detected fetal abnormality. She suggested that the pregnancy be carried to full term and that the State would assume responsibility for the child’s welfare and adoption if born alive.
During in-camera proceedings, the Court interacted with the petitioner, the Medical Board, and both counsels. It was established that the petitioner had consciously and voluntarily decided to terminate the pregnancy. She conveyed her current unemployment, absence of social support, and the emotional turmoil caused by her situation.
The Court also referred to the Supreme Court’s precedent in A (Mother of X) v. State of Maharashtra & Anr., which mandates that the medical opinion must reflect the mental and physical impact of continued pregnancy on the petitioner. The apex court had clarified that denial of abortion solely on the grounds that statutory thresholds are unmet undermines the pregnant person’s fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution.
The petitioner also sought to undergo the procedure involving stopping the fetal heartbeat, as per Clause V(c) of the Guidance Note issued by the State of Maharashtra. A follow-up report by the Medical Board dated 19th June 2025—marked as ‘X1’—recommended that the procedure be performed by a fetal medicine expert at a recognized hospital equipped for feticide. Sir J.J. Group of Hospitals lacked such a facility but offered to transfer the petitioner to N.M. Wadia Hospital, Mumbai, which was equipped and licensed for the same.
The petitioner’s former partner, impleaded as Respondent No. 6 (XYZ), appeared before the Court and offered to deposit ₹1,00,000 in her account to cover medical, legal, and incidental expenses. He also expressed willingness to accompany her to the hospital if she wished.
The Court recorded the following judicial findings after a thorough evaluation of the facts and the petitioner’s circumstances: “It is clear from the report that the Petitioner has a history of illness. She has specifically pleaded in the Petition that the pregnancy occurred on account of failure of contraceptive device used by her. In these circumstances, continuance of the pregnancy is causing her tremendous amount of anguish constituting grave injury to her mental health.”
During the Court’s interaction with the petitioner, she appeared visibly distressed by the circumstances she was facing. It was evident that she had arrived at the decision to terminate the pregnancy after careful consideration.
The judges further confirmed that this choice was made voluntarily, and that she did not wish to proceed with the pregnancy.
In referring to the decision in A (Mother of X) v. State of Maharashtra, the Court quoted: “The decision to terminate pregnancy is deeply personal for any person. The choice exercised by a pregnant person is not merely about their reproductive freedom but also about their agency as recognised by this court in X v. State (NCT of Delhi).”
The Court noted that it is not sufficient for the medical board to simply conclude that the criteria under Section 3(2-B) of the MTP Act are unmet.
Such a limited assessment would hinder the Court’s ability to exercise its jurisdiction effectively. A comprehensive medical opinion, particularly regarding the potential risks to the pregnant person’s physical and mental health, is essential for the Court to make an informed decision.
Once such an opinion is placed on record, the Court then applies its judicial mind to that assessment before arriving at a conclusion.
The Court concluded: “Having considered the findings and opinion of the Medical Board pertaining to the psychological condition of the Petitioner as well as the averments in the Petition, and our interaction with her, we are satisfied that continuance of the pregnancy shall adversely affect the already disturbed psychological condition of the Petitioner.”
The Court directed that the petitioner be permitted to medically terminate her pregnancy. It held: “We permit the Fetal Medical doctor concerned of N.M. Wadia Hospital, Mumbai to perform the MTP procedure.”
The petitioner was instructed as follows: “The Petitioner is directed to present herself at J.J. Hospital at 10:30 a.m. on 20th June 2025. The authorities of J.J. Hospital shall facilitate her transfer to the N.M. Wadia Hospital, Mumbai at the earliest. Subject to the N.M. Wadia Hospital having the facility of a fetal medical expert to carry out the procedure of MTP by stopping the fetal heartbeat, the Petitioner is permitted to undergo MTP at N.M. Wadia Hospital, Mumbai.”
Additionally, the Court recorded the voluntary offer of financial support from the petitioner’s partner: “He shall deposit the said amount in the bank account of the Petitioner during the course of today.”
The Court ordered that all parties may act on an authenticated copy of the order and listed the matter for reporting compliance on 23rd June 2025 at 2:45 p.m. in chambers.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioner: Ms. Nikita Raje, Advocate
For the Respondents: Ms. M. P. Thakur, Assistant Government Pleader
Case Title: ABC v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.
Neutral Citation: 2025:BHC-AS:24332-DB
Case Number: Writ Petition No. 7491 of 2025
Bench: Justice Revati Mohite Dere and Justice Dr. Neela Gokhale
