Sheetal Shankar Salvi and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors.
Background
The petitioner, then about 27 weeks pregnant, approached the Supreme Court directly under Article 32 of the Constitution for directions permitting her to medically terminate her pregnancy after her fetus was diagnosed with serious congenital abnormalities, including Arnold Chiari malformation Type 2, severe hydrocephalus, meningomyelocele, spina bifida, and a tethered cord. The Court had earlier directed a seven-member Medical Board at Mumbai's KEM Hospital to examine her and submit a report before the matter could be decided.
Decision Breakdown
The Medical Board's report found that the mother's own health was normal and that continuing or ending the pregnancy posed no physical danger to her, but confirmed the fetus had severe anomalies that would cause significant physical and mental impairment if it survived birth; it also noted that termination at 27 weeks could result in the baby being born alive and surviving for some uncertain period, and the Board itself did not recommend termination on medical grounds. Weighing these findings, no risk to the mother's life, a chance the baby could be born alive, and the Board's own view against termination, the Supreme Court held it could not, in the interests of justice, direct termination merely because the mother was anxious about the pregnancy's outcome. It accordingly declined the petitioners' prayer and dismissed the writ petition.
Lesson Learnt
Courts rely heavily on an independent medical board's expert assessment in late-term pregnancy termination cases, and will not authorise termination where there is no danger to the mother's life, the fetus may be born alive, and the medical experts themselves recommend against it: a mother's anxiety about the outcome, standing alone, is not treated as sufficient legal ground for termination at this stage.