Note: Before addressing legislative intent, the Court, considering the urgency of the matter and, permitted ‘X’ to terminate her pregnancy immediately by an Operating Order.

Facts:

• The Appellant, A, was the mother of a minor daughter, X.
• The State of Maharashtra was the Respondent in the case.
• X, a minor, 14 years of age, was subjected to sexual assault in September 2023. The pregnancy was discovered on 20 March 2024, by which time 'X' was approximately 25 weeks pregnant.
• On 20 March 2024, an FIR was registered against the alleged perpetrator for offences under Section 376 IPC and Sections 4, 8, and 12 of the POCSO Act.
• 'X' was examined on 21 March 2024 and transferred to JJ Group of Hospitals, Mumbai, where she was found fit for pregnancy termination, subject to High Court permission.
• The Appellant filed the case in the Bombay High Court seeking termination of 'X's pregnancy, but the permission was denied.
• Aggrieved by the decision of the Bombay High Court, the Appellant approached the Supreme Court.
  

Background:

High Court’s Holding:

• The Appellant approached the High Court of Judicature at Bombay under Article 226 of the Constitution, seeking the termination of her daughter’s pregnancy.
• The High Court dismissed the writ petition on the ground that the pregnancy exceeded the statutory period of 24 weeks. (Paragraph 2-3)
  

Supreme Court:

• The Appellant, aggrieved by the High Court’s dismissal, filed a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court under Article 136 of the Constitution seeking termination of the pregnancy.
• On 19 April 2024, the Supreme Court issued notice and ordered a fresh Medical Board assessment at the Lokmanya Tilak Municipal General Hospital, Sion, Mumbai, due to gaps in the earlier report submitted before the High Court. (Paragraph 4)
  

Findings of the Sion Hospital Medical Board

• A team of six doctors examined 'X' and found the gestational age to be 29.6 weeks.
• The board concluded that continuing the pregnancy would negatively impact 'X's physical and mental well-being.
• They stated the termination could be done with no higher risk than carrying the pregnancy to full term, and continuation of pregnancy could cause psychological trauma to the patient. (Paragraph 5-7)
  

Supreme Court's Operating Order

• The Supreme Court, on 22 April 2024, set aside the Decision of the High Court and allowed 'X' to terminate the pregnancy immediately, citing urgency.
• Dean at Sion Hospital was requested to constitute a team for the termination procedure. (Paragraphs 8-9)
  

Concerns Raised by the Dean at Sion Hospital before Ms Aishwarya Bhati, Additional Solicitor General, seeking intervention from the Supreme Court:

Changing Statements by Minor's Mother:

• Parents of the minor, on 24 April 2024, agreed to terminate the baby's life in utero and attempt normal delivery, with permission for cesarean section if needed.
• Later, on 25 April 2024, the minor's mother expressed a desire to deliver the baby alive for adoption by a relative.
• Then, on 26 April 2024, Minor's mother again changed the statement by requesting termination after injecting the baby’s heart.
• Medical Concerns were raised as the Sonography on 25 April 2024 revealed a 30.2-week pregnancy with a baby weight of 1593 grams.
• Hence, guidance was requested from the Supreme Court on whether to deliver the baby alive or terminate the pregnancy by injecting medicine to stop the baby's heart as per government guidelines. (Paragraph 10)
  

Further developments

• The Dean at Sion Hospital communicated with the Registrar (Judicial – I), and the proceedings were listed before the Court on 29 April 2024, the first available working day.
• The Court heard submissions from counsel again and decided to interact with the parents of ‘X’ and the medical team of doctors at Sion Hospital via video conferencing. (Paragraphs 11-12)
  

Minutes of discussion:

• After the Court’s 22 April 2024 order, the medical team followed the required procedures and sought consent. The Appellant initially wanted to carry the pregnancy to term for adoption but later requested termination.
• The medical team planned to use an intracardiac KCL injection, following Union Government guidelines from 14 August 2017 and a State Government SOP from 18 January 2020, to end the fetal life.
• The doctors explained the risks associated with terminating an advanced pregnancy stage, including potential complications if the fetal heart does not stop after the injection.
• The parents, preferring not to risk the minor's health, decided to continue the pregnancy to term and chose to take their daughter home and return for regular checkups.
• At the time of the previous order, the minor was in her 13th week of pregnancy, but during this discussion, she was near the end of the 31st week.
• The Court prioritised the safety and welfare of the minor and accepted the parent's decision, recalling the earlier order for termination of the pregnancy. (Paragraphs 13-19)
  
  

Main Issues:

1. Whether the opinion of the medical board constituted under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy (MTP) Act, 1971, must reflect the effect of the pregnancy on the pregnant person’s physical and mental health?
2. Whether the Medical Termination of Pregnancy (MTP) Act, 1971 and the reproductive rights of a pregnant person give priority to their consent?