Allowed¶46

Abc v. State of Maharashtra Thr the Principal Secretary and Ors.

Bombay HC11 Jun 2026WP/7245/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ Petition No. 7245 of 2026, High Court of Judicature at Bombay, decided 17 June 2026 — medical termination of pregnancy beyond 24 weeks; unmarried 19-year-old petitioner; non-anomalous fetus at 26 weeks 6 days gestation; J.J. Hospital / Grant Government Medical College Medical Board report; reproductive autonomy and bodily integrity under Article 21; Mother of “X” vs. State of Maharashtra (2024 SCC Online SC 608) relied on; petition made absolute; termination permitted with NICU-related risk counselling.

What did the court decide?

Permission granted to terminate the pregnancy notwithstanding gestational age beyond 24 weeks; J.J. Hospital permitted to commence the termination procedure as early as possible; order to be communicated to the Dean of Sir J.J. Hospital by the Government Advocate. ¶46

Abc vs State of Maharashtra Thr the Principal Secretary and Ors. — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶46

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, an unmarried 19-year-old woman, may be permitted to terminate her pregnancy at 26 weeks and 6 days of gestation — beyond the 24-week period prescribed under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 — where the fetus is not anomalous and she pleads that continuation would jeopardise her education, career prospects, social standing and overall well-being.

¶27

Court's answer

Despite the gestational age exceeding by over two weeks the period prescribed under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971, the Court held that J.J. Hospital, which examined the petitioner, shall endeavour to terminate the pregnancy and permitted it to be terminated.

¶41

Ratio / Principle

The right of a woman to discontinue a pregnancy has been recognised by the Constitutional Courts, which have emphasised reproductive autonomy and bodily integrity as part of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

¶30

Key takeaways

Termination of the pregnancy at the current stage would pose no threat to the life of the mother; since the fetus is not anomalous, the Medical Board itself could not grant permission for termination.ratio¶26
The unwanted pregnancy would have a serious impact on the petitioner's mental health, career and overall well-being; being an unmarried female, the Court deemed it appropriate to respect her decision.ratio¶39
The petitioner, being a major and informed of the risks and consequences along with her relatives, having made a choice, there was no difficulty in the team of medical doctors proceeding with the termination; the necessary procedure was permitted to commence as early as possible.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Bharati Dangre & Manjusha Deshpande, JJ; judgment per Bharati Dangre, J) allowed a writ petition by 'ABC', an unmarried 19-year-old, permitting termination of her pregnancy at 26 weeks 6 days gestation — beyond the 24-week period under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 — where the fetus was not anomalous. Acting on the J.J. Hospital Medical Board report (marked 'X') that termination posed no threat to the mother's life and could proceed with due risk if directed by the Court, and invoking the recognised reproductive autonomy and bodily integrity of a woman under Article 21 of the Constitution, and relying on Mother of “X” vs. State of Maharashtra, 2024 SCC Online SC 608, the Court held that the unwanted pregnancy would seriously affect the petitioner's mental health, education and overall well-being, respected her choice as a major duly counselled on the risks, permitted the procedure to commence immediately, and made the petition absolute.

¶1

1/6 901 wp 7245-26.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 7245 OF 2026

¶4

ABC

¶5

.. Petitioner

¶6

Versus State of Maharashtra through the .. Respondents Principal Secretary and ors

¶7

Mr. Anand Mishra with Mr.Sushil Upadhyay and Siddharth Singh for the petitioner. Smt.M.P. Thakur, Addl. Government Pleader for the State.

¶8

CORAM : BHARATI DANGRE & MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, JJ DATED : 17^th JUNE, 2026.

¶9

ORAL JUDGMENT:- (Per Bharati Dangre, J)

¶10

1 . On the petitioner, aged 19 years being referred to Medical Board of Grant Government Medical College and J.J. Group of Hospitals, Mumbai for verifying the status of her pregnancy, as she has approached this Court seeking its termination, Mrs.Thakur, the Government Advocate has placed before us the report of the Committee constituted for the said purpose.

¶11

The Committee has expressed its opinion as below :-

¶12

“Obstetrics Ultrasonography Suggestive of Single Live intrauterine gestation of mean gestational age 26 weeks and 6 days (+/- 2 weeks) with Cephalic Presentation Fundo Posterior Placenta Estimated Fetal Weight- 965 ± 143gms gm with normal Amniotic Fluid Index.

¶13

Tilak

¶14

2/6 901 wp 7245-26.doc

¶15

The patient and her mother have been thoroughly counselled. They have expressed a strong desire for termination of pregnancy at this stage. As the pregnancy is beyond 24 weeks and the fetus is not anomalous, this Medical Board is not empowered to grant the permission for termination of pregnancy under the existing legal provisions.

¶16

However, if so directed by the Hon'ble Court, termination may be considered in the interest of the patient's psychological health and to prevent grave, irreparable harm to her mental well-being if she is compelled to continue the pregnancy against her wishes. As fetus has crossed more than 24 weeks of gestation, fetus may be live-born and relatives have been counselled that fetus may require Neonatal Intensive Care Unit support and still prognosis may be poor. Medical termination of pregnancy can be permitted with due risk. The risk has been explained to the patient and her relatives and they have accepted the same.”

¶17

In addition, the Associate Professor of each of the Department has also furnished separate opinion.

¶18

The report of the Board/Committee placed before is us marked as ‘X’ for identification.

¶19

2 . On examining the petitioner, an unmarried woman, aged 19 years, in pursuance of our order, a detailed medical examination was carried out. We are informed that the fetus is 26.6 weeks as per the scan done on 16/6/2026 and the expected due date by ultra sonography is set out as 15/9/2026.

¶20

The report record that the patient and her mother are strongly desirous of termination of pregnancy, which at this stage, is 26 weeks, 6 days.

¶21

Commenting upon the health of the mother, the report state that if the termination is allowed at this stage, it will

¶22

Tilak

¶23

3/6 901 wp 7245-26.doc

¶24

entail a very small theoretical risk to the life of the mother. However, as regards the fetus, it is stated that if the pregnancy is terminated now, the fetus would have a probability of being born alive and may require Intensive Neonatal Care and it may also be affected by the complications of its preterm status.

¶25

Thus, the opinion expressed clearly leave it to the discretion of the Court to permit the termination of pregnancy which is now above 24 weeks and the fetus is not anomalous and therefore, it is opined that it is beyond the scope of the Board to allow termination of the pregnancy.

¶26

From reading of the report, one thing is evidently clear to us i.e. if the pregnancy is terminated at this stage, it will not pose any threat to the life of the mother. We have also noted that the fetus is not anomalous and therefore, the Board cannot grant permission for terminating the pregnancy.

¶27

Balancing the two circumstances, we must note that the petitioner is a 19 year old, unmarried female and she has clearly expressed before us through the petition that the pregnancy is unwanted and since she is desirous of continuing with her educational pursuit, and even apprehensive that if she give birth to the child, she will be stigmatized in the Society. She has specifically pleaded before us for termination of the pregnancy, which according to her, will seriously jeopardise her education, future career prospects, social standing and overall well being and continuation of the pregnancy would compel her to discontinue or substantially interrupt her studies.

¶28

Tilak

¶29

4/6 901 wp 7245-26.doc

¶30

4 . The right of a woman to exercise her right to discontinue the pregnancy, has received recognition on more than one occasion by the Constitutional Courts, as in every such case, the Court has emphasized on the reproductive autonomy, and bodily integrity as a part of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

¶31

In Mother of “X” vs. State of Maharashtra ,¹ the Apex Court dealt with the 14 year old who sought termination of pregnancy of about 29 weeks and noting that the continuation of pregnancy would cause serious physical and psychological consequences and its deleterious effect over the health and mind of a young girl, justified the termination of the pregnancy, though beyond 24 weeks.

¶32

It is highlighted that the Medical Board must evaluate the mother’s mental and physical health rather than relying upon the gestational age which are not conclusive and if continuation of the pregnancy prejudice the physical or mental health of the mother, then the Courts have always leaned in favour of terminating the same.

¶33

In the report placed before us, as per the Department of Psychiatry, it is opined that the patient feels that she is not in a position to take care of the baby emotionally, financially and socially.

¶34

As far as the health of the mother is concerned, she is informed to be stable, but has expressed a strong desire even before the Committee to terminate the pregnancy.

¶35

1 2024 SCC Online SC 608

¶36

Tilak

¶37

5/6 901 wp 7245-26.doc

¶38

Being an unmarried female, we deem it appropriate to respect her decision and particularly, in the background which is pleaded before us in the petition and which was set out before the Medical Board before she was examined.

¶39

Since according to the petitioner, the pregnancy was unwanted, we are of the view that it will have a serious impact on the mental health, career and overall well being of the petitioner. The risk involved if the pregnancy is permitted to be terminated or if the pregnancy is permitted to continue and if she is made to deliver now or at a term, the report has indicated that the risk for the mother is same.

¶40

The patient and relatives when counseled regarding the same, insisted on termination of pregnancy at this instant stage with the fetus approximately having gestational age of 26 weeks plus 6 days.

¶41

As per the opinion expressed by the Department of Pediatrics, if the pregnancy is now terminated, the fetus has a probability to be born alive and requiring NICU care and in such circumstances, when we find that the petitioner is not in a mental state to accept the child and give birth, the best course available in our opinion, despite the petitioner having crossing the period prescribed under the The Medical Termination Of Pregnancy Act, 1971, by over a period of two weeks,we are of the view that the J.J. Hospital which has examined the petitioner shall endeavour to terminate the pregnancy and we permit it to be terminated.

¶42

Tilak

¶43

6/6 901 wp 7245-26.doc

¶44

6 . We are informed that the petitioner is presently in J.J. Hospital, we permit the necessary procedure to commence for termination of the pregnancy as early as possible.

¶45

7 . In any case, the petitioner who is major along with her relatives, is informed of the risk and consequences and we see no difficulty in the team of Medical Doctors proceeding with the process of termination of pregnancy as desired by her, as she has made a choice.

¶46

8 . Petition is made absolute in above terms.

¶47

The order shall be communicated to the Dean of Sir J.J. Hospital by the Government Advocate Mrs. Thakur.

¶48

(MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, J) (BHARATI DANGRE, J.)

¶49

Tilak

Abc v. State of Maharashtra Thr the Principal Secretary and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abc v. State of Maharashtra Thr the Principal Secretary and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Shri Ram Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Sangeeta Rajaram Harmale and Anr. vs State of Maharashtra Thr. G. P. and Ors.

Tahsildar Uran vs Ram Dashrath Patil

Ramakrishna Sadan Co. Op. Hsg. Soc. Ltd. vs the State of Maharashtra Thru G P and Ors.

Jitendra Shihori Rajbhar vs Manisha Jitendra Rajbhar and Anr.

Pallavi Shailesh Kulkarni vs Shailesh Vijay Kulkarni