REDACTED vs STATE OF KARNATAKA
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
NC: 2026:KHC:25550
WP No. 16035 of 2026
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
ST
DATED THIS THE 1 DAY OF JUNE, 2026
®
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
WRIT PETITION NO. 16035 OF 2026 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
SMT. XXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXX,
XXXXXXXXXXXXXX,
XXXXXXXXXXXXXX,
XXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXX,
XXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXX,
XXXXXXXXXXXXXX.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. RAVISHANKAR G S., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE,
VIKASASOUDHA
BANGALORE - 560001
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
2. UNION OF INDIA
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE,
ROOM NO.S 211-D, NIRMAN BHAWAN,
NEW DELHI - 110 011
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. V.G. BHANUPRAKASH., AAG FOR
SRI. MOHAMMED JAFFAR SHAH., AGA FOR R1;
SRI. ARAVIND KAMATH., ASGI FOR
SMT. SADHANA S. DESAI., CGC FOR R2)
Digitally signed
by SHWETHA
RAGHAVENDRA
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
- 2 -
NC: 2026:KHC:25550
WP No. 16035 of 2026
HC-KAR
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A
WRIT/DIRECTION/PERMISSION TO THE PETITIONER TO MEDICALLY
TERMINATE HER PREGNANCY, THE LENGTH OF WHICH HAS
EXCEEDED 32 WEEKS UNDER THE MEDICAL CARE AND
SUPERVISION OF DR.PRIVA CR OR OTHER QUALIFIED EXPERTS AT
AT ANUPAMA HOSPITAL, 72. CII IO ROAD, BEL LAYOUT, 2ND PHASE,
NEAR KARNATAKA BANK-COLLEGE BUS STOP, BYADARAHALLI,
MAGADI MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU 560091 IN THE INTEREST OF
JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS
UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
ORAL ORDER
1. The Petitioner - pregnant mother is before this Court
seeking for the following reliefs:
a) Issue a writ/direction/permission/to the petitioner
to medically terminate her pregnancy, the length of
which has exceeded 32 weeks under the medical care
and supervision of Dr.Priya C R or other qualified
experts at Anupama Hospital, #72, CII IQ Road, BEL
nd
Layout, 2 phase, Near Karnataka Bank-College Bus
stop, Byadarahalli, Magadi Main Road, Bengaluru-
560091 in the interest of justice and equity.
b) Pass any such writs, orders and directions as this
Hon’ble court may deem fit in the facts and
circumstances of the case in the interest of justice
and equity.
2. The petitioner states that she is a married woman
aged about 36 years and is presently pregnant. It is
submitted that out of the said wedlock, she has one
- 3 -
NC: 2026:KHC:25550
WP No. 16035 of 2026
HC-KAR
female child aged about 10 years, who is stated to
be in good health.
3. The petitioner submits that during the course of her
present pregnancy, she has been undergoing regular
antenatal care and medical examinations, including
periodic ultrasonography, as advised by the treating
doctors.
4. It is stated that an ultrasound scan conducted on
06.05.2026 revealed certain abnormalities in the
fetus. In view of the findings recorded therein, a
repeat scan was conducted on 07.05.2026 for
confirmation and further evaluation.
5. According to the petitioner, the findings recorded in
both the scans indicated the presence of serious fetal
abnormalities and anomalies. Upon evaluation of the
scan reports and other relevant medical records, the
treating doctors are stated to have informed the
petitioner regarding the nature of the abnormalities
detected in the fetus and the possible medical
consequences arising therefrom.
6. The petitioner submits that the abnormalities
detected are of such a nature as to raise serious
concerns regarding the health, viability and future
- 4 -
NC: 2026:KHC:25550
WP No. 16035 of 2026
HC-KAR
quality of life of the fetus. The petitioner further
states that she has been advised to obtain
appropriate medical opinion and to take necessary
steps in accordance with law in view of the
abnormalities identified during the course of the
pregnancy.
7. It is in the aforesaid circumstances that the
petitioner has approached this Court seeking
appropriate reliefs based on the medical condition of
the fetus as disclosed in the diagnostic examinations
conducted on 06.05.2026 and 07.05.2026.
8. The abnormalities which have been identified are as
under:-
“There is irregular CSP (Cavumseptum
Pelllucidu), the corpus callosum in the main bridge
of nerve fibers that connects the left and right
hemispheres of the brain. “Partial agenesis means
this bridge did not form completely”. The scan
notes that the front parts (rostrum, genu, and
anterior body) are present but the back parts
(posterior body and splenium) are missing or not
visible.
Thin irregular Corpus Callosum (The cavum
septum pellucidum (CSP) is a fluid-filled space in
the center of the brain closely tied to the
development of the corpus callosum. Because that
central bridge is incomplete, the CSP appears
irregular, and a nearby fluid space (the third
ventricle) is sitting higher up than usual).
- 5 -
NC: 2026:KHC:25550
WP No. 16035 of 2026
HC-KAR
Rostrum, Genu and anterior part of the body
is seen.
Posterior part of body and splenuim not
seen.
High riding of third ventricle.
(Partial Agenesis of Corpus Callosum).
Bilateral Lateral Ventriculomegaly (Both
fluid-filled ventricles in the brain are now showing
enlargement. The left side measures 13.0 mm
(which is classified as mild ventriculomegaly), and
the right side measures 16.4 mm (which crosses
the threshold into moderate-to-severe
ventriculomegaly, defined as greater than 15 mm).
Right lateral ventricular atrial width
measures 16.4 mm.
Left lateral ventricular atrial width measures
13 mm.
9. The ultrasound examinations conducted on
06.05.2026 and 07.05.2026 revealed significant
abnormalities in the development of the fetal brain.
The diagnostic findings indicate partial agenesis of
the corpus callosum, namely, incomplete formation
of the principal bundle of nerve fibres connecting the
left and right cerebral hemispheres. The reports
disclose that while the rostrum, genu and anterior
portion of the body of the corpus callosum are
visualised, the posterior portion of the body and the
splenium are absent or not visualised.
- 6 -
NC: 2026:KHC:25550
WP No. 16035 of 2026
HC-KAR
10. The scans further reveal an irregular cavum septum
pellucidum (CSP), a midline brain structure closely
associated with the normal development of the
corpus callosum. The reports indicate that the CSP
appears irregular and that the third ventricle is
abnormally elevated ("high-riding"), findings which
are stated to be consistent with the diagnosis of
partial agenesis of the corpus callosum.
11. The diagnostic imaging also demonstrates bilateral
lateral ventriculomegaly, namely, abnormal
enlargement of the fluid-filled ventricles within the
fetal brain. The right lateral ventricular atrial width
measures 16.4 mm, while the left lateral ventricular
atrial width measures 13.0 mm. The medical records
indicate that the enlargement on the left side falls
within the category of mild ventriculomegaly,
whereas the enlargement on the right side exceeds
the threshold of 15 mm and is categorized as
moderate to severe ventriculomegaly.
12. The aforesaid findings, when read cumulatively,
disclose substantial abnormalities involving the
structural development of the fetal brain and
associated cerebrospinal fluid spaces. According to
the medical opinion relied upon by the petitioner, the
- 7 -
NC: 2026:KHC:25550
WP No. 16035 of 2026
HC-KAR
abnormalities detected are congenital in nature and
are suggestive of significant impairment in
neurological development.
13. Based on the aforesaid findings, the treating doctors
advised the petitioner and her husband regarding the
nature and implications of the fetal abnormalities
detected. The petitioner states that they were
informed that the corpus callosum, which serves as
the principal neural connection between the two
cerebral hemispheres, had not developed completely
and that there was abnormal enlargement of the
cerebral ventricles due to accumulation of fluid within
the brain.
14. The petitioner further states that the medical opinion
furnished to her indicated a poor neurological
prognosis. According to the doctors, the
abnormalities detected significantly increase the risk
of profound neurodevelopmental impairment and
may be associated with severe neurological deficits
after birth.
15. It is stated that the petitioner and her husband were
informed that, if the pregnancy were to continue and
the child were born alive, there existed a substantial
likelihood of the child suffering from serious
- 8 -
NC: 2026:KHC:25550
WP No. 16035 of 2026
HC-KAR
neurological and developmental disorders, including
recurrent and difficult-to-control seizures, severe
intellectual and cognitive disability, motor
dysfunction and spasticity, substantial developmental
delay and lifelong dependence on specialised
medical, rehabilitative and institutional care.
16. Having regard to the nature of the abnormalities
detected, their apparent irreversibility and the
prognosis communicated by the treating doctors, the
petitioner and her husband were advised to consider
Medical Termination of Pregnancy (MTP) as a
medically appropriate option.
17. It is in the aforesaid background that the petitioner,
after obtaining medical opinions indicating serious
congenital abnormalities affecting the fetal brain and
after being informed of the likelihood of the fetus, if
carried to term, suffering from profound physical,
neurological and cognitive disabilities resulting in
permanent and serious handicap, has approached
this Court seeking permission for medical termination
of the pregnancy.
18. The petitioner contends that continuation of the
pregnancy in the face of the aforesaid abnormalities
would result in the birth of a child afflicted with grave
- 9 -
NC: 2026:KHC:25550
WP No. 16035 of 2026
HC-KAR
and irreversible disabilities and would subject the
child as well as the family to considerable medical,
emotional and social hardship. It is on that basis that
the present petition has been instituted seeking
appropriate directions from this Court.
19. This Court, vide its order dated 29.05.2026, having
issued notice to the concerned, directed the
petitioner to be examined by the Medical Board and
report to be submitted today.
20. Sri V.G. Bhanuprakash, learned Additional Advocate
General, has placed before this Court, in a sealed
cover, the report submitted by the Medical Board
constituted pursuant to the directions issued by this
Court.
21. A perusal of the report indicates that the petitioner
was examined by the Medical Board comprising
specialists from the relevant disciplines and their
individual opinions have been incorporated in the
report.
21.1. The opinion of the Paediatrician is that the
petitioner may be taken up for the proposed
procedure and that there is no objection from
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC:25550
WP No. 16035 of 2026
HC-KAR
the paediatric perspective to the course of
action recommended by the Medical Board.
21.2. The Radiologist, upon evaluation of the
diagnostic imaging studies, has recorded that
the fetus exhibits partial agenesis of the corpus
callosum associated with bilateral
ventriculomegaly. The Radiologist has observed
that, strictly speaking, the said condition may
not by itself constitute an absolute indication
for medical termination of pregnancy. However,
it has been specifically noted that the
abnormalities detected carry a significant risk of
neurological impairment and developmental
disability in the child after birth. The Radiologist
has further opined that the condition may result
in substantial neurological deficits and may
impose considerable emotional, physical and
financial burdens upon the parents and family
members. In that background, the Radiologist
has expressed the view that medical
termination of pregnancy may be considered if
the parents desire the same and if the other
members of the Medical Board are also of the
opinion that such termination would be
appropriate.
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC:25550
WP No. 16035 of 2026
HC-KAR
21.3. The Anaesthetist has opined that the petitioner
is fit to undergo the proposed procedure from
the anaesthetic standpoint and that there is no
contraindication for proceeding further in
accordance with the recommendation of the
Medical Board.
21.4. The Obstetrician has likewise examined the
petitioner and has opined that the petitioner
may be taken up for the proposed procedure,
subject to the orders of this Court and in
accordance with the applicable medical
protocol.
21.5. Upon considering the clinical findings,
diagnostic reports and the opinions furnished
by the specialists concerned, the Medical Board
has arrived at a collective conclusion that
termination of the pregnancy may be
considered in the case of the petitioner.
21.6. Thus, while noting that the fetal abnormalities
detected may not constitute a condition
invariably incompatible with life, the Medical
Board has nevertheless taken into account the
significant risk of serious neurological and
developmental disabilities associated with the
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC:25550
WP No. 16035 of 2026
HC-KAR
diagnosed anomalies and has ultimately opined
that medical termination of pregnancy may be
permitted, if so ordered by this Court.
22. Sri.Aravind Kamath, learned Additional Solicitor
General places on record the decision of the Hon'ble
Apex Court in the case of S vs. The Union of India
1
& ors., . He brings to the notice of this Court Para
15 thereof which is reproduced hereunder for easy
reference:
15
. Thus, what is relevant is whether the pregnant woman
intends to give birth to a child or not. In the instant case, the
facts of the case reveal that the minor girl intends not to give
birth.
15.1 Keeping that in view, when Constitutional Courts are
approached by unintending mothers seeking termination of
pregnancy, they ought not take a prohibitory approach. The
consequence of such an approach will not be the cessation of
late-term terminations, which will happen anyway, but only their
displacement outside the law. Pregnant women may be driven to
seek termination through unregulated means, often at a greater
risk to their life and health. Thus, the unintended consequence
of judicial reluctance to permit termination beyond the statutory
period reinforces the very conditions that the MTP Act seeks to
avoid, namely unsafe abortions.
15.2
Moreover, the invocation of foetal normalcy or the fact that
the pregnancy has been carried for a considerable duration as
grounds to deny termination is of no constitutional
persuasiveness. These arguments proceed on the assumptions:
first, that in the absence foetal abnormality, the continuation of
pregnancy is unobjectionable, and second, that the passage of
time extinguishes the pregnant woman’s claim to decisional
autonomy.
15.3 We wish to lay to rest both the above arguments. Firstly,
to predicate access to termination on the existence of foetal
anomaly is to make the exercise of a fundamental right over
1
SLP (C) No.14454/2026 dtd 24.4.2026
- 13 -
NC: 2026:KHC:25550
WP No. 16035 of 2026
HC-KAR
one’s body contingent upon pathology of the foetus, which is not
in the hands of the unintending mother. In other words, her
rights are subordinated to the condition of the foetus over which
she has no control. As a matter of constitutional principle, this
cannot be allowed. Rights are not functions of circumstance,
they attach to humans for the reason that they are free moral
agents. To say that termination of pregnancy is thinkable only in
the presence of foetal defect instrumentalises the pregnant
woman into a conduit who is required to sustain a pregnancy no
matter her will. Secondly, the passage of time does not
extinguish the right to make reproductive choices. This
argument rests on the untenable presumption that delay means
acquiescence, disregarding the manifold reasons that may
account for late presentation of pregnancy including but not
limited to delayed detection due to irregular menstrual cycles or
lack of reproductive awareness, limited access to healthcare
services, financial constraints that impede timely medical
consultation, and hesitation to disclose a pregnancy coercion,
abuse, or lack of familial support: all of which may prevent
earlier disclosure.
15.4 Constitutional courts cannot overlook that parties approach
them in such hard cases precisely because no effective statutory
right remains available. The absence of a legal remedy under
the MTP Act is the very reason for the court’s jurisdiction being
invoked in the first instance. Therefore, to defer mechanically to
statutory limitations is to disregard the distinct role of the
Constitutional Court in protecting individual rights even when no
other statutory remedies exist. The effect of such an approach is
to render the fundamental right to bodily autonomy nugatory.
22.1. His submission is that only if the conditions
indicated therein are satisfied could MTP be
resorted to. This he submits as an officer of the
Court and as also for the reason that Union of
India has been arrayed as a party respondent
in the present matter.
22.2. He categorically submits that there is no
adversarial litigation in the matter and it is for
this Court to draw the inferences on the basis
- 14 -
NC: 2026:KHC:25550
WP No. 16035 of 2026
HC-KAR
of the report of the Medical Board and the
applicable law.
23. Since the petitioner was undergoing medical
evaluation and treatment pursuant to the directions
issued by this Court and was not personally present
before the Court at the time of hearing, her husband,
Sri R. Sivaram, appeared before this Court.
23.1. Upon enquiry by the Court, Sri R. Sivaram
stated that he is engaged in the business of
aerospace manufacturing and sales. He
submitted that he and the petitioner have
carefully considered the medical opinions
furnished by the treating doctors as well as the
findings recorded by the Medical Board.
23.2. He submitted that it is with considerable
anguish and a sense of responsibility that the
petitioner and he have taken the decision to
seek medical termination of the pregnancy.
According to him, the decision is not based on
any personal preference or convenience but is
entirely founded upon the medical opinions
rendered by the specialists who have examined
the petitioner and evaluated the condition of
the fetus.
- 15 -
NC: 2026:KHC:25550
WP No. 16035 of 2026
HC-KAR
23.3. He submitted that the medical experts have
consistently opined that the fetus is affected by
serious congenital neurological abnormalities
and that there exists a substantial likelihood of
the child suffering from severe neurological and
developmental impairments if carried to term
and born alive. According to him, the medical
opinion further indicates that notwithstanding
the availability of medical intervention and
surgical procedures after birth, the prospects of
the child leading a normal and independent life
remain highly uncertain.
23.4. He therefore submitted that, having regard to
the prognosis communicated by the medical
experts and the likely consequences for the
child, the petitioner and he are of the
considered view that it would be in the best
interests of both the petitioner and the fetus
that the pregnancy be medically terminated.
23.5. Sri R. Sivaram further submitted that neither
he nor the petitioner had, at any point of time,
contemplated or intended to undergo a medical
termination of pregnancy and that the present
request has arisen solely on account of the
- 16 -
NC: 2026:KHC:25550
WP No. 16035 of 2026
HC-KAR
grave fetal abnormalities diagnosed during the
course of the pregnancy. According to him, the
decision has been taken only after obtaining
and considering the medical opinions furnished
by the treating specialists and the Medical
Board.
23.6. The husband of the petitioner further submitted
that he is committed to ensuring that the
petitioner receives the best possible medical
care and post-procedure support. He submitted
that, after consulting the concerned medical
professionals, the petitioner and he have
identified Anupama Hospital for carrying out the
medical termination of pregnancy and for
providing the necessary medical care
thereafter.
23.7. He further submitted that the petitioner and he
are financially capable of bearing the expenses
associated with the procedure, hospitalisation
and post-operative treatment and, therefore,
do not seek any financial assistance from the
State Government or any other public authority
for the said purpose.
- 17 -
NC: 2026:KHC:25550
WP No. 16035 of 2026
HC-KAR
24. Sri V.G. Bhanuprakash, learned Additional Advocate
General, on instructions received from the concerned
authorities, submits that Anupama Hospital is a duly
registered medical establishment authorised and
competent to undertake medical termination of
pregnancy in accordance with the provisions of the
Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 and the
Rules framed thereunder.
25. Learned Additional Advocate General further submits
that, in view of the statement made on behalf of the
petitioner and her husband that they shall bear the
entire expenses relating to the procedure,
hospitalisation and subsequent medical care, there
would be no financial implication whatsoever upon
the State Government.
26. He therefore submits that, insofar as the State
Government is concerned, there is no objection to
the medical termination of pregnancy being carried
out at Anupama Hospital, provided the procedure is
undertaken by duly qualified medical professionals in
accordance with the applicable statutory provisions,
established medical protocols and the
recommendations of the Medical Board.
- 18 -
NC: 2026:KHC:25550
WP No. 16035 of 2026
HC-KAR
27. Learned Additional Advocate General further submits
that all necessary precautions, safeguards and post-
procedural care as may be medically required ought
to be ensured by the concerned medical institution
while undertaking the procedure.
28. Sri Aravind Kamath, learned Additional Solicitor
General of India, on instructions, adopts the
submission made by the learned Additional Advocate
General and submits that the Union of India also has
no objection to the medical termination of pregnancy
being carried out at Anupama Hospital in accordance
with law and the opinion rendered by the Medical
Board.
29. Both the learned Additional Advocate General and
the learned Additional Solicitor General submit that,
having regard to the opinion of the Medical Board,
the wishes expressed by the petitioner and her
husband and the medical circumstances brought on
record, appropriate orders may be passed by this
Court in accordance with law.
30. Heard Sri.Ravishankar G. S., learned counsel for the
petitioner, Sri. V. G. Bhanuprakash, learned
Additional Advocate General for respondent no.1,
- 19 -
NC: 2026:KHC:25550
WP No. 16035 of 2026
HC-KAR
Sri. Arvind Kamath, learned ASGI for respondent
no.2. Perused papers.
31. Before considering the facts of the present case, it is
necessary to notice the constitutional principles
which govern adjudication of matters relating to
medical termination of pregnancy. The issue involved
is not merely one concerning the interpretation of the
provisions of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy
Act, 1971, but concerns the far broader questions of
bodily autonomy, decisional freedom, reproductive
choice, dignity and privacy of a pregnant woman.
32. The right of a woman to make reproductive choices
has now been firmly recognised by the Hon'ble Apex
Court as an inseparable component of the right to life
and personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of
the Constitution of India. The expression "personal
liberty" occurring in Article 21 has, through judicial
interpretation, been expanded to encompass bodily
integrity, decisional autonomy, privacy and dignity.
Reproductive autonomy forms an intrinsic part of
these constitutional guarantees since decisions
relating to pregnancy directly concern the body,
health, emotions, dignity and future of the woman
concerned.
- 20 -
NC: 2026:KHC:25550
WP No. 16035 of 2026
HC-KAR
33. Pregnancy, while undoubtedly a biological process, is
also a deeply personal and life-altering experience.
The decision whether to continue a pregnancy or
terminate the same has consequences extending far
beyond the period of gestation. Such a decision
impacts the physical health of the woman, her
mental well-being, her family life, her social
circumstances, her financial condition and, in many
cases, the entire trajectory of her future life. It is for
this reason that Constitutional Courts have
consistently recognised that the primary decision-
making authority in matters of pregnancy rests with
the pregnant woman herself.
34. The Hon'ble Apex Court has repeatedly held that
reproductive choice includes both the right to
procreate and the right not to procreate. The
freedom to decide whether to bear a child, when to
bear a child and under what circumstances to bear a
child is a constitutionally protected choice. Any
interpretation of law which diminishes such
autonomy must therefore withstand the highest
degree of constitutional scrutiny.
35. In the decision relied upon by the learned Additional
Solicitor General, namely S vs. Union of India &
- 21 -
NC: 2026:KHC:25550
WP No. 16035 of 2026
HC-KAR
Others , the Hon'ble Apex Court has once again
emphasised that Constitutional Courts, when
approached by women seeking permission for
termination of pregnancy, ought not to adopt a
restrictive, technical or prohibitory approach. The
observations made therein recognise a practical
reality, namely that refusal of permission by a Court
does not necessarily prevent termination of
pregnancies. Instead, such refusal may expose
women to unsafe and unregulated procedures,
thereby endangering their life, health and bodily
integrity.
36. The observations of the Hon'ble Apex Court assume
particular significance in cases involving advanced
pregnancies where the statutory framework may not
provide an automatic remedy and where the
pregnant woman is constrained to invoke the
extraordinary jurisdiction of a Constitutional Court.
The very fact that a woman approaches a
Constitutional Court seeking permission
demonstrates that she is attempting to act within the
framework of law and under medical supervision.
Constitutional Courts must therefore approach such
requests with sensitivity, constitutional compassion
- 22 -
NC: 2026:KHC:25550
WP No. 16035 of 2026
HC-KAR
and an awareness of the realities faced by women
confronted with difficult reproductive choices.
37. The Hon'ble Apex Court has also clarified that
reproductive autonomy cannot be made contingent
solely upon the existence of fetal abnormalities. To
predicate the exercise of a constitutional right
entirely upon the condition of the fetus would be to
subordinate the autonomy of the woman to
circumstances beyond her control. The Constitution
protects the dignity and autonomy of the woman
because she is a rights-bearing individual. The
existence of fetal abnormalities may undoubtedly
constitute a relevant and weighty factor; however,
the constitutional foundation of the right lies in the
autonomy of the pregnant woman herself.
38. Equally important is the rejection by the Hon'ble
Apex Court of the proposition that the mere
advancement of pregnancy extinguishes reproductive
choice. The passage of time cannot be treated as
extinguishing constitutional rights. Delays in
diagnosis, limited access to healthcare facilities,
delayed manifestation of fetal abnormalities, financial
constraints, emotional uncertainty and numerous
other circumstances may explain why a woman
- 23 -
NC: 2026:KHC:25550
WP No. 16035 of 2026
HC-KAR
approaches a Court at an advanced stage of
pregnancy. Constitutional adjudication cannot
proceed on assumptions divorced from the practical
realities of life.
39. In the present case, the facts reveal that the
petitioner has acted with diligence throughout her
pregnancy. The medical records indicate that she
underwent regular antenatal examinations and
diagnostic investigations. Significantly, the scan
conducted on 04.04.2026 did not reveal any
abnormality and all measurements were reported to
be within normal parameters. Thus, there was no
occasion for the petitioner to seek medical
intervention or legal recourse at that stage.
40. It was only during the subsequent scan conducted on
06.05.2026 that abnormalities relating to the
development of the fetal brain came to light. The
seriousness of the findings necessitated a repeat and
more detailed evaluation on 07.05.2026, which
confirmed the initial observations. Therefore, the
timing of the present petition is directly attributable
to the timing of the diagnosis itself. The petitioner
cannot be faulted for not approaching the Court
- 24 -
NC: 2026:KHC:25550
WP No. 16035 of 2026
HC-KAR
earlier when the abnormalities had not yet been
detected.
41. The medical material placed on record indicates
partial agenesis of the corpus callosum together with
bilateral ventriculomegaly. The reports disclose
incomplete formation of the principal neural pathway
connecting the cerebral hemispheres and
enlargement of the ventricular system within the
fetal brain. While this Court is not expected to
substitute its own opinion for that of medical experts,
the significance of these findings cannot be ignored,
particularly when specialists have opined that such
abnormalities carry a risk of serious neurological and
developmental consequences.
42. The Medical Board constituted pursuant to the
directions of this Court has independently evaluated
the petitioner and the medical records. The Board
has not merely reproduced the findings of the
treating doctors but has undertaken its own
assessment. The report indicates that the fetus is
affected by partial corpus callosum agenesis with
bilateral ventriculomegaly and acknowledges the
possibility of significant neurological disabilities and
developmental impairments.
- 25 -
NC: 2026:KHC:25550
WP No. 16035 of 2026
HC-KAR
43. It is true that the Medical Board has observed that
the diagnosed condition may not be one which is
invariably incompatible with life. However, the
inquiry before this Court is not confined to
determining whether the fetus can survive birth.
Survival alone cannot constitute the sole measure of
constitutional adjudication in matters of reproductive
choice. The quality of life that may reasonably be
expected, the extent of disability likely to be
suffered, the burden of medical intervention required
and the prognosis indicated by medical experts are
all relevant considerations.
44. The evidence on record indicates that the child, if
born, may face substantial neurological challenges.
The possibility of severe developmental delay,
cognitive impairment, motor dysfunction, recurrent
seizures and lifelong dependence upon specialised
medical care has been expressly brought to the
notice of this Court. While medical science cannot
predict outcomes with absolute certainty, the law
does not require certainty. It requires the Court to
make a reasoned assessment based on credible
medical evidence.
- 26 -
NC: 2026:KHC:25550
WP No. 16035 of 2026
HC-KAR
45. This Court also cannot ignore the human dimension
of the matter. The petitioner and her husband have
made it abundantly clear that the present request is
not motivated by convenience, social preference or
any extraneous consideration. The material on record
indicates that the decision has been taken only after
repeated consultations with specialists, consideration
of diagnostic reports and evaluation of the prognosis
communicated by medical experts.
46. The statement made by the petitioner's husband
before this Court reflects the anguish with which the
decision has been taken and how they have
approached this court with an heavy heart. Far from
seeking to avoid parental responsibilities, the
petitioner and her husband have demonstrated a
willingness to undertake every possible measure for
the welfare of the child. It is only after being
informed of the serious abnormalities detected and
the prognosis associated therewith that they have
chosen to seek medical termination of pregnancy.
47. The Court must also recognise that continuation of
pregnancy in such circumstances affects not only the
future child but also the physical and psychological
well-being of the petitioner. To compel a woman to
- 27 -
NC: 2026:KHC:25550
WP No. 16035 of 2026
HC-KAR
continue a pregnancy despite a considered decision
to the contrary, particularly where serious fetal
abnormalities have been diagnosed and the Medical
Board has recommended that termination may be
considered, would constitute a substantial intrusion
into her bodily autonomy and decisional freedom.
48. Constitutional Courts exist to protect individual
autonomy, especially in difficult cases where
statutory remedies may be unavailable or
inadequate. The present case exemplifies precisely
such a situation. The petitioner has approached this
Court not in disregard of law but in compliance with
it. She seeks permission to act lawfully, transparently
and under proper medical supervision.
49. Having regard to the constitutional principles
recognised by the Hon'ble Apex Court, the wishes
unequivocally expressed by the petitioner, the
support extended by her husband, the medical
evidence on record, the opinion of the Medical Board
and the overall facts and circumstances of the case,
this Court is satisfied that the balance
overwhelmingly favours permitting the petitioner to
undergo medical termination of pregnancy.
- 28 -
NC: 2026:KHC:25550
WP No. 16035 of 2026
HC-KAR
50. Denial of permission in the peculiar facts of the
present case would not only undermine the
petitioner's constitutionally protected autonomy but
would also disregard the considered medical opinion
placed before this Court. Grant of permission, on the
other hand, would uphold the petitioner's dignity,
bodily integrity and decisional freedom while
ensuring that any procedure undertaken is performed
safely, lawfully and under expert medical
supervision.
51. This Court is therefore of the considered opinion that
the petitioner has established a clear and compelling
case warranting the exercise of the extraordinary
jurisdiction of this Court and for grant of permission
to undergo medical termination of pregnancy.
52. While permitting medical termination of pregnancy,
this Court is also required to ensure that adequate
safeguards are put in place to protect the life, health,
dignity, privacy and bodily integrity of the petitioner.
The jurisdiction exercised by this Court in such
matters is not confined merely to granting
permission for termination of pregnancy but extends
to ensuring that the procedure is carried out in a
safe, lawful and medically appropriate manner with
- 29 -
NC: 2026:KHC:25550
WP No. 16035 of 2026
HC-KAR
due regard to the constitutional rights of the
petitioner.
53. The petitioner is presently carrying an advanced
pregnancy and the medical termination procedure
proposed to be undertaken necessarily involves
certain medical risks. It is therefore imperative that
all necessary precautions be taken by the concerned
medical professionals and the hospital authorities to
minimize risks to the life and health of the petitioner.
54. Anupama Hospital, having been stated to be a duly
registered medical establishment authorised to
undertake medical termination of pregnancy, shall
ensure that the procedure is carried out strictly in
accordance with the provisions of the Medical
Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971, the Rules
framed thereunder and the applicable medical
protocols, guidelines and standards prescribed by the
competent authorities.
55. The hospital shall constitute an appropriate team of
specialists, including obstetricians, anaesthetists,
neonatologists and such other specialists as may be
required, to assess the petitioner prior to the
procedure and to ensure that all medical
contingencies are adequately addressed.
- 30 -
NC: 2026:KHC:25550
WP No. 16035 of 2026
HC-KAR
56. Prior to commencement of the procedure, the
petitioner shall be informed of the nature of the
procedure proposed to be undertaken, the attendant
risks, possible complications and the post-procedural
care required. The consent of the petitioner shall be
obtained in the manner known to law. The decision
to undergo the procedure shall remain that of the
petitioner and shall be respected at every stage.
57. The hospital shall maintain all emergency facilities,
including blood and blood products, intensive care
support, operation theatre facilities and specialist
medical assistance, so as to immediately address any
unforeseen complication that may arise during or
after the procedure.
58. The life and health of the petitioner shall remain the
paramount consideration while undertaking the
procedure. In the event of any unforeseen medical
situation, the treating doctors shall be at liberty to
adopt such course of treatment as may be medically
necessary to preserve the life and health of the
petitioner.
59. The identity of the petitioner shall be kept strictly
confidential by all authorities, hospitals, doctors and
persons concerned with the implementation of this
- 31 -
NC: 2026:KHC:25550
WP No. 16035 of 2026
HC-KAR
order. No person shall disclose the identity, medical
records or personal details of the petitioner except to
the extent required by law or for the purpose of
medical treatment.
60. The medical records, diagnostic reports, proceedings
of the Medical Board and all documents pertaining to
the petitioner shall be maintained in a confidential
manner and shall not be disclosed to any third party
without the express consent of the petitioner or
orders of a competent court.
61. In the event that the fetus is delivered with signs of
life, the medical professionals attending upon the
procedure shall extend all such medical care as may
be required in accordance with the applicable legal
and ethical standards governing medical practice.
62. The hospital shall provide appropriate post-procedure
counselling and psychological support to the
petitioner and her family members, if required,
having regard to the emotional and psychological
impact associated with the circumstances leading to
the present proceedings.
63. The State Government, through the concerned health
authorities, shall ensure that no impediment is
- 32 -
NC: 2026:KHC:25550
WP No. 16035 of 2026
HC-KAR
caused to the implementation of this order and that
all necessary assistance, if sought by the treating
hospital, is extended forthwith in the interest of
safeguarding the life and health of the petitioner.
64. It is made clear that the permission granted by this
Court is intended solely to facilitate the petitioner in
obtaining lawful and safe medical treatment. The
entire procedure shall be undertaken under the
supervision of duly qualified medical professionals,
who shall exercise their independent professional
judgment in accordance with accepted standards of
medical practice, with the preservation of the life,
health, dignity and bodily integrity of the petitioner
being the paramount consideration.
65. Registry is directed to redact such information as
maybe necessary to safeguard the privacy of the
parties, before uploading the judgement on the
website.
66. In that view of the matter, this Court passes the
following:
- 33 -
NC: 2026:KHC:25550
WP No. 16035 of 2026
HC-KAR
ORDER
i) The Writ petition is allowed.
ii) The doctors at Anupama Hospital, No.72/3, CII
nd
IQ, BEL Layout, 2 Phase, Near Karnataka
Bank -College Bus Stop, Byadarahalli, Magadi
Main Road, Bengaluru 560091 are permitted to
carry out the procedure for medical termination
of pregnancy on the petitioner by observing due
care. The said procedure to be carried out at
the earliest in such a manner as not to cause
any harm to the petitioner's life and liberty.
iii) The State as also Anupama Hospital shall act on
the operative portion of this order without
insisting on the complete order.
iv) Hand delivery ordered.
SD/-
(SURAJ GOVINDARAJ)
JUDGE
PRS
List No.: 2 Sl No.: 1