Termination of pregnancy exceeding 24 weeks declined where fetus is viable and mother’s life is not endangered.

The matter originated from a reference by a Trial Court involving a 16-year-old minor victim of sexual assault (registered under Crime No. 85/2026) seeking medical termination of pregnancy (MTP).

An ultrasound dated April 27, 2026, estimated the pregnancy at 26 weeks and 5 days, which progressed to approximately 31 weeks and 2 days by the date of the High Court order.

A Medical Board at District Hospital, Mandla, examined the petitioner on May 12, 2026, finding a live, viable fetus and noting the petitioner’s low hemoglobin (7.5 gm/dl). The Board opined that MTP was not possible at this advanced stage.

Under the High Court’s SOP dated February 20, 2025, cases of sexual assault survivors exceeding 24 weeks of pregnancy must be referred to the High Court.

1. Whether the court can permit the medical termination of a pregnancy exceeding 24 weeks when the Medical Board has opined that the fetus is viable and termination is not medically advisable?

2. Whether the lack of fetal abnormalities or immediate danger to the life of the pregnant woman precludes the exercise of jurisdiction to order MTP beyond the statutory limit?

The court applied the Medical Termination of Pregnancy (MTP) Act, specifically Section 3(2-B) and Section 5, which restrict termination beyond 24 weeks to cases involving substantial fetal abnormalities or where it is immediately necessary to save the life of the pregnant woman.

The court relied heavily on the precedent of X v. Union of India & Another (2024) 12 SCC 453, which clarified that for pregnancies beyond 24 weeks, the outer temporal limit is lifted only for life-saving measures or fetal malformation.

The court applied the principle that courts should be averse to directing doctors to stop a fetal heartbeat in cases of viable fetuses near full term.

The court observed that the pregnancy had reached 31 weeks and 2 days, significantly exceeding the 24-week statutory threshold for standard MTP.

Applying the criteria in X v. Union of India, the court noted that termination at this stage is only permissible if the mother's life is at risk or the fetus has substantial abnormalities.

In this instance, the Medical Board provided a categorical opinion against termination, citing that the fetus was viable and the mother had low hemoglobin, making the procedure unsafe.

The court reasoned that since no fetal abnormalities were present and the mother's life was not in immediate danger, it lacked the grounds to intervene.

The court emphasized that at 31 weeks, termination would necessitate stopping the heartbeat of a nearly fully-developed fetus, an action the judiciary is reluctant to mandate.

The court held that given the 31-week gestation and the Medical Board’s adverse report, MTP could not be authorized.

The court directed that if a live birth occurs, the State must provide full care and protection for the child.

It granted the petitioner liberty to file a fresh petition for directions regarding foster care or the child's welfare and ordered the Trial Court to report the birth to the High Court.