Meera Santosh Pal and Ors v. Union of India
Background
A 22-year-old woman, 24 weeks into her pregnancy, approached the Supreme Court directly under Article 32 of the Constitution after discovering her fetus had anencephaly: a fatal condition where the skull bones fail to form, meaning the baby could not survive birth and the condition also endangered her own life. Indian law at the time generally barred termination of pregnancy beyond 20 weeks except in narrow circumstances, so she sought the Court's permission to terminate the pregnancy despite being past that limit. The Court had earlier directed a seven-doctor Medical Board at KEM Hospital, Mumbai to examine her and report on the medical and psychiatric position.
Decision Breakdown
The Medical Board's report confirmed the fetus could not survive outside the womb and that continuing the pregnancy posed a grave risk to the mother's physical and mental health, and also confirmed she had made a competent, informed decision with her husband's support. Relying on its own three-judge precedent in Suchita Srivastava vs. Chandigarh Administration (2009), the Court held that a woman's right to make reproductive choices is part of "personal liberty" under Article 21 of the Constitution, and that her right to bodily integrity and to preserve her own life took precedence even though the pregnancy had crossed 24 weeks. Since the medical evidence satisfied the risk-to-life/health standard under Section 3(2)(i) of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971, and the government's own counsel did not oppose the plea on any legal or medical ground, the Court permitted the termination, directing it be performed and supervised by the same hospital/Medical Board with full procedural records maintained. The writ petition was allowed in terms of this specific prayer, with other prayers not pressed.
Lesson Learnt
Even where a pregnancy has crossed the ordinary statutory time-limit for termination, a woman facing a medically confirmed, life-threatening fetal abnormality can approach the Supreme Court directly for permission to terminate on the basis of her constitutional right to bodily autonomy and life, provided a credible medical board confirms the risk and her informed consent.