No medical termination of almost 30-week pregnancy: Bombay HC – Times of India

MUMBAI: Refusing to permit medical termination of the almost 30 weeks pregnancy of a woman whose foetus is normal, Bombay high court said it considered the risk to her life. “We are not by this order making any wider or general pronouncement that in any way limits women’s rights to decide whether or not to carry a child to full term. We are mindful of the law in India on the subject (as opposed to recent developments in the US for example),” said Justices Gautam Patel and Madhav Jamdar in their March 29 order.
They mentioned a Texas law at the in-camera hearing. In India, MTP is allowed up to 24 weeks without HC nod. In Texas as of September 1, 2021, abortion is illegal once a foetal heartbeat is detected which may be as early as 6 weeks. Before this abortions were allowed up to 20 weeks.
The woman (25) moved HC to allow MTP saying continuing the pregnancy will cause grave injury to her mental health. She was sexually assaulted by a man she met in October 2021 who promised to marry her. He later refused to marry her. An FIR was lodged against the man for rape. On March 23 a test done at the sub-district hospital showed she was 28 weeks pregnant. The judges referred to JJ Hospital panel’s report that there is “no foetal or birth anomaly” and there is “significant risk at this stage to the petitioner.” To “ensure that they were at ease”, the judges sat with her anxious family in the “well of the court so as to explain to them personally the situation.”
“At this stage, therefore, we cannot permit a medical termination of pregnancy. The medical risk to the petitioner is too great. The petitioner will have to carry the infant to full term,” they said. The woman’s advocate Ashley Cusher argued that she has a bodily right and it is up to her to decide whether she can give birth or not. The judges clarified they are not passing a general order limiting women’s rights whether or not to give birth.
They said, “But we have to bear in mind the medical report that cautions us about possible danger to the life of the petitioner. It is a consideration of the risk to the petitioner that compels us to make the order.” On April 1 the judges directed the woman to be shifted to a shelter until delivery. After that they will give directions “regarding the new born and postnatal care for the petitioner.”