Case Analysis: XYZ & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra (2024) | Termination of Pregnancy

A woman has the right to reproductive freedom, which encompasses her autonomy over her body and her ability to make choices.

Case Title: XYZ & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra

Court: High Court of Bombay

Citation: Criminal Writ Petition No.2794 of 2024

Judges: Justice A. S. Gadkari and Justice Dr. Neela Gokhale

Date of Judgment: 3rd July, 2024

Facts of the Case

A couple approached the Bombay High Court to seek medical termination of Petitioner 1 (wife’s) pregnancy which was of 24 weeks duration. Since Petitioner 1 had recently been diagnosed with stage IV pancreatic cancer and multiple liver metastases, the couple was seeking medical termination of the said pregnancy. With the pregnancy, the petitioner was not considered fit for palliative chemotherapy.

Petitioner 1 urged the Hon’ble High Court to understand her position whereby she wanted to live a happy and healthy life and for the same, she needed to undergo treatment that was palliative chemotherapy. To be able to receive that, she had to get the pregnancy medically terminated.

While referring to a letter that was dated 26.06.2024 and had been issued by Dr. Aniket Baraskar, Tata Memorial Centre addressed to OBGY, KEM/Wadia Hospital Mumbai, the Hon’ble Hig Court inferred that the petitioner was a patient of pancreatic cancer and was unfit for palliative chemotherapy due to pregnancy. The High Court thereby directed that a medical board must be set up whereby the authorities from King Edward Hospital Mumbai shall examine the physical and mental well-being of the Petitioner.

The medical board as had been directed to be set up by the Hon’ble High Court, comprised of the following persons who were considered to be ‘medical experts’:

• Dr. Padmaja Samant, Professor and Unit Head, Head of Department Obstetrics & Gynecology, KEM Hospital & Seth G.S. Medical College;
  
• Dr. Hemangi Kansaria, Professor and Unit Head, Obstetrics & Gynecology, KEM Hospital & Seth G.S. Medical College;
• Dr. Namrata Tiwari, Assistant Professor, Obstetrics & Gynecology, KEM Hospital & Seth G.S. Medical College;
• Dr. Karishma Rupani, Assistant Professor, Psychiatry, KEM Hospital & Seth G.S. Medical College;
• Dr. R. Prabhu Additional Professor, Gastrointestinal Surgery, KEM Hospital & Seth G.S. Medical College.

The above set-up medical board, post-meeting and discussions held elaborately, prepared a comprehensive report and submitted the same to the Hon’ble High Court. Some of the key points mentioned in the said report were as follows:

1. The pregnancy that Petitioner was seeking to medically terminate was 25-26 weeks in duration.
2. Stage IV cancer can be inferred through the frozen section of the liver and ultrasonography.
3. Even if Petitioner receives the palliative chemotherapy post-termination of pregnancy, her condition shall remain fatal, which means that the termination of pregnancy shall not guarantee long-term survival.
4. Termination of pregnancy at this stage shall lead to premature birth whereby resuscitation might have to be practiced. In case of a neonate’s death because of prematurity, the same will have to be reported to the respective authorities as per requisite guidelines.
5. Chemotherapy may be undertaken by Petitioner 1 while continuing with her pregnancy and she can wait for the same to take its due course.

Along with the report containing the key points as elicited above, a letter was also submitted by the Petitioner which had been issued by Dr. Prabhat Bhargav and Dr. Anant Ramaswamy, working as Consultants at GI-Medical Oncology of Tata Memorial Centre, Mumbai. This letter mentioned that the Petitioner ‘may’ proceed with the chemotherapy along with her pregnancy as per previously published data that states that the impact on the pregnancy shall be limited.

Issues Involved

The following issues were involved in the instant case:

• Whether a 26-week pregnancy can make the Petitioner unfit for palliative chemotherapy?
  
• Whether termination of pregnancy shall be allowed considering the medical condition of the Petitioner?

Laws Applied

Judgment

After hearing the contentions of the Petitioner at length, the Hon’ble Court was pleased to pass a judgement which is detailed herein:

1. It is clear from the bare perusal of the medical report, which the Medical Board submitted, that the Petitioner was anaemic. During her delivery process, she might require haemoglobin by way of transfusion.
   
2. There was no other potential threat for the Court to believe that the termination of pregnancy might pose any potential risk to the health of Petitioner.
3. While the Court acknowledged that the Petitioner has a right to reproductive freedom, it also acknowledged that she was suffering from ailment and unbearable pain.
4. The Court was inclined towards permitting the Petitioner to terminate her pregnancy if she wanted to terminate the same.
5. Under such termination, if a pre-mature baby was born alive, the hospital shall be responsible for providing necessary neonatal care to such child.
6. In case the Petitioner wanted to give such a child for adoption, subject to such decision, the State and its agency may assume responsibility for the child and take such steps as necessary to rehabilitate the child including exercising the option of placing the child in foster care/adoption by following the due legal process.