REDACTED vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors

CNR No : HCBM010523912026

2026:BHC-AS:42547-DB
1/4 906 WP-14021-26.odt
Salgaonkar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
MANDIRA MILIND
SALGAONKAR
Digitally signed by MANDIRA
MILIND SALGAONKAR
Date: 2026.10.19 17:09:51 +0530
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.14021 OF 2026
XYZ .. Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents
…
Mr.Kaustubh R. Gidh for the Petitioner.
Smt.M.P.Thakur, A.G.P. for the State/Respondent.
CORAM: BHARATI DANGRE &
ASHISH S. CHAVAN, JJ.
th
DATE : 19 OCTOBER, 2026
...
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER BHARATI DANGRE, J.):-
1. As directed by us, Mrs.Thakur has placed before us the
report of District Medical Board constituted under the Medical
Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 under the Chairmanship
of Civil Surgeon, Civil Hospital, Thane to examine the
Petitioner, a woman aged 32 years, who sought termination of
her pregnancy on the basis that the report indicate some fetal
abnormality.
The report produced before us in a sealed envelope,
under the signature of a Civil Surgeon is taken on record and
marked ‘X’ for identification.
2. It is pertinent to note that the Medical Termination of
Pregnancy Act, 1971 (for short, “Act of 1971) permit
termination of certain pregnancies by a registered Medical
Uploaded on - 19/10/2026 Downloaded on - 19/10/2026 17:26:46

2/4 906 WP-14021-26.odt
Practitioners i.e. it has legalised the termination on various
socio-medical grounds.
Section 3 of the said statute permit termination of the
pregnancy, by specifically providing that the said provision
shall operate notwithstanding anything contained in the
Indian Penal Code, as if such a procedure is carried out, a
Medical Practitioner shall not be guilty of any offence under
the Code or any other law for the time being in force. However,
this right is specifically restricted by sub-section (2).
Sub-section (2)(b) of Section 3, however, provide that
the provisions of sub-section (2) relating to the length of
pregnancy shall not apply, if such termination is necessitated
by the diagnosis of any substantial foetal abnormalities
diagnosed by a Medical Board.
The Medical Termination of Pregnancy Rules, in Rule (b)
has set out as to which categories of women are considered to
be eligible for termination of pregnancy under clause (b) of
sub-sections (2) and (3) of the Act of 1971 for a period upto
twenty-four weeks and this include (f)- the foetal malformation
that has substantial risk of being incompatible with life or if
the child is born it may suffer from such physical or mental
abnormalities to be seriously handicapped.
3. In light of the aforesaid statutory provision, we have
considered the request of the Petitioner based on the report of
the Obstetric Sonography and the report from Nowrosjee
Wadia Maternity Hospital, which identified “Hypoplastic nasal
bone” in the single live intrauterine gestation with the age of
28 weeks 3 days.
Uploaded on - 19/10/2026 Downloaded on - 19/10/2026 17:26:46

3/4 906 WP-14021-26.odt
4. The report produced before us has the involvement of
two Gynaecologist, one Radiologist, one Psychiatrist and one
Pediatrician from Civil Hospital, Thane. Based upon the
ultrasonographic findings, it is recorded as below :-
“Since the pregnancy has advanced to 25 weeks 6 days (by USG
Report dated on 17/10/2026 having with hypoplastic nasal bone
with severe oligohydramnios with no gross fetal anomaly.”
What is noted in the report is that the fetus is the case of
hypoplastic nasal bone with severe oligohydramnios, but it is
categorically stated that there is no gross fetal anomaly.It is
clarified that no life-threatening abnormality has been
identified in the fetus.
5. The Petitioner is stated to be a case of idiopathic
thrombocytopenic purpura and she is undergoing the
treatment at Wadia Hospital, Mumbai. The Medical Board has,
therefore, left it open for the Court to finally decide whether
the pregnancy needs to be terminated.
6. Careful reading of the provisions of the Act of 1971
alongwith the Rules, it is noticed by us that it is not that a
pregnancy beyond 24 weeks shall be permitted to be
terminated just at the drop of the hat and in fact, the provision
in Section 3 itself, permit the pregnancy to be terminated by a
registered Medical Practitioner provided it does not exceed 20
weeks. In case if the pregnancy exceed 20 weeks, but does not
exceed twenty-four weeks, then it is only available in respect of
such category of woman as set out in the Rules and only when
the Medical Practitioner is of the view that the continuance of
Uploaded on - 19/10/2026 Downloaded on - 19/10/2026 17:26:46

4/4 906 WP-14021-26.odt
the pregnancy would involve a risk to the life of the pregnant
woman or of grave injury to her physical or mental health or
there is a substantial risk that if the child was born, it would
suffer from any serious physical or mental abnormality.
The said provisions when read with Rule 3(b) of the
Medical Termination of Pregnancy Rules, 2003, in our view,
except the additional opinion of the Gynaecology Department
that the pregnancy is classified as high-risk, which according
to us, is for the purposes if at all the Court advises the
pregnancy to be terminated, but in the report submitted in
Form D, the Gynaecology Department has only identified the
finding that the mother is a patient of idiopathic
thrombocytopenic purpura and is on medication. It is not
expressed that that per se would pose danger to her life.
Apart from this, it is also stated that there is no life-
threatening abnormality identified in the fetus, but it only
record presence of oligohydramnios, a medical condition
during pregnancy marked by abnormally low volume of
amniotic fluid surrounding the fetus in amniotic sac. In our
view, in absence of the specific finding from the Board that
continuation of the pregnancy would be life threatening either
for the mother on account of she being a patient of idiopathic
thrombocytopenic purpura or that the fetus suffer from a life-
threatening abnormality, in our view, in light of the opinion of
the Board placed before us, we are not inclined to grant the
request of terminating the pregnancy.
The Petition is, therefore, dismissed.
No order as to cost.
(ASHISH S. CHAVAN, J.) (BHARATI DANGRE, J.)
Uploaded on - 19/10/2026 Downloaded on - 19/10/2026 17:26:46
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)