Supreme Court of India
SHEETAL SHANKAR SALVI AND ANR.versusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
- Citation
- 2017 INSC 275
- Decided
- 27 March 2017
- Disposal
- Dismissed
Holding
Termination of pregnancy cannot be permitted where there is no danger to the mother’s life and the Medical Board does not advise termination on medical grounds.
Summary
Petitioner Sheetal Shankar Salvi, at 27 weeks of pregnancy, sought a direction from the Supreme Court under Article 32 to allow medical termination of her pregnancy because the fetus was diagnosed with Arnold‑Chiari malformation type II with severe anomalies. A seven‑member Medical Board examined her case and reported that the mother’s health was normal, there was no risk to her life, and although the fetus had serious defects it might survive after birth; the Board did not recommend termination on medical grounds. The petitioner argued that continuation would cause her anxiety and that the fetus would suffer severe morbidity. The Court considered whether anxiety alone or fetal anomaly, absent danger to the mother, could justify termination beyond the statutory limit. It held that, in the interests of justice, termination could not be permitted as there was no medical indication and the Board’s opinion was decisive. Consequently, the petition was dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether a woman can obtain a court order for medical termination of pregnancy beyond the statutory limit on the ground of fetal anomaly and personal anxiety, absent risk to her life.
- Whether the opinion of a Medical Board is determinative in deciding the permissibility of termination under the Constitution’s guarantee of personal liberty.
Subjects
reproductive rightsmedical termination of pregnancyfetal anomalypersonal libertyArticle 21Medical BoardArnold‑Chiari malformationSupreme Court
Judgment
[2017] 2 S.C.R. 939
SHEETAL SHANKAR SALVI AND ANR. A
v.
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
·--""-r·
(Writ Petition (Civil) No. f74 of2017)
B
MARCH 27, 2017
[S. A. BOBDE AND L. NAGESWARA RAO, JJ.]
Constitution of India - Art.2I - Personal liberty - Woman :S
right to make reproductive choices - Medical termination of
pregnancy-Petitioner no.} into her 27 weeks of pregnancy- Fetus
c
diagnosed with Arnold Clwiri malformation Type 2 with meningo
myelocele with tethered cord - Report of Medical Board stating
that the mother :S physical condition was normal and there was no
phys_ical risk to the mother, due to continuation or termination of
pregnancy but she was anxious about outcome of pregnancy; the D
fetus had severe physical anomalies which would compromise post
natal quality of life and the child would suffer severe physical and
mental morbidity on survival and the baby may be born alive and
may survive for variable period of time - Writ petition by petitioner
. no. 1 seeking directions to the respondents to allow her to undergo
E
medical termination of pregnancy - Held: Apparently, it was not
possible for the said Medical Board to determine the period of time
for which the baby was likely to survive - It also appeared from the
report of Medical Board that the baby was not likely to survive 1ike
a normal baby - However, in view of the fact that there was no
danger to the mothers life and the likelihood that the baby may be
born alive and may survive for variable period oftime, in the interests
of justice it is considered inappropriate to allow the prayer of
petitioner no. l - In fact, the Medical Board itself had stated that it
did not advise medical termination of pregnancy for petitioner no. l
011 medical grounds - Permission to te~minate the life of the fetus,
ther('.fore, not wanted. G
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (Civil) No.
174of2017.
Under Article 32 or the Constitution oflndia.
H
939
940 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [20 l 7] 2 S.C.R.
A Sneha Mukherjee, Satya Mitra, Advs. for the Petitioners.
Ranjit Kumar, SG, Ms. Sadhana Sandhu, G. S. Makker, Nishant
R. Katneshwarker, Arpit Rai, Advs. for the Respondents.
The following Order of the Court was delivered
B
ORDER
1. Petitioner No. I - Sheetal Shankar Salvi, has approached this
Court under Article 32 of the Constitution oflndia seeking directions to
the respondents to allow her to undergo medical termination of her
pregnancy.
c
2. By order dated 22.3.2017, while issuing notice to the
respondents, this Court gave a direction for examination of petitioner
no. I by a Medical Board consisting of the following seven Doctors:
I. Dr. Avinash N. Supe, Director (Medical Education & Major
D Hospitals) & Dean (G&K) - Chairman
2. Dr. Shubhangi Parkar, Professor and HOD, Psychiatry, KEM
Hospital
3. Dr.Amar Pazare, professor and HOD, Medicine, KEM Hosptial
E
4. Dr. Indrani Hemantkumar Chincholi, Professor and HOD,
Anaesthesia, KEM Hospital
5. Dr. Y.S. Nandanwar, Professor and HOD, Obstetrics, KEM
Hospitals
F 6. Dr. Anahita Chauhan, Professor and Unit Head, Obstetrics &
Gynecology, LTMMC and LTMG Hospitals
7. Dr. Hemangini Thakkar, Addi. Professor, Radiology, KEM
Hospital. ·
3. Petitioner No. I is into her 27 weeks of pregnancy. This is also
G borne by the medical report dated 25.3.2017, received from the Dean &
Director (ME & MH)'s Office, Seth G.S. Medical College & KEM
Hospital, Pare!, Mumbai - 400012.
4. It is not in dispute that the fetus of petitioner no. I has been
diagnosed with polyhydramnios with Arnold Chairi malformation Type 2
H
SHEETAL SHANKAR SALVI AND ANR. v. UNION OF !NOIA 941.
AND ORS.
severe hydrocephalus with lumbosacral meningo myelocele and spina A
bifida with tethered cord.
5. The Medical Board has submitted its report dated 25.3.2017.
On perusal of the said report, we find that the said report contains the
following significant features for the purposes of passing this order :
B
(I) The diagnosis of Arnold Chairi malformation Type 2 with
meningo myelocele with tethered cord has been made on the basis
ofultrasonography.
(2) The mother's physical condition _is normal and there is no
physical risk to the mother, due to continuation or termination of C
pregnancy. But she is anxious about outcome of pregnancy.
(3) The fetus has severe physical anomalies which will compromise
post natal quality of life and the child will have severe physical
and mental morbidity on survival.
D
( 4) If the pregnancy is terminated at 2 7 weeks, the baby may be
born alive and may survive for variable period of time.
6. Apparently, it has not been possible for the aforesaid Medical
Boar:! to determine the period of time for which the baby is likely to
survive. It also appears from the said report that the baby is not likely to E
survive like a normal baby.
7. However, having regard to the fact that there is no danger to
the mother's life and the likelihood that 'the baby may be born alive and
may survive for variable period of time, we do not consider it appropriate
in the interests of justi~e to direct the respondents to allow petitioner F
no. I to undergo medical termination of her pregnancy. In fact, the
aforesaid Medical Board has itself stated that it does not advise medical
termination of pregnancy for petitioner no. I on medical grounds.
8. The only other ground that appears from the observations made
in the aforesaid medical report apart from the medical grounds, is that G
petitioner no. I is anxious about the outcome of the pregnancy. We find
that the termination of pregnancy cannot be permitted due to this reason.
9. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it is not possible for
us to grant permission to petitioner no. I to terminate the life of the fetus.
H
942 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 2 S.C.R.
A 10. In view of the above, as at presently advised, we decline the
prayer of the petitioners for directing the respondents to allow Petitioner
No.1 to undergo medical termination of the pregnancy.
11. Hence; the writ petition is dismissed.
B
Devika Gujral v..:rit Petition dismissed.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "reproductive rights"Sign in to search