MEERA SANTOSH PAL AND ORS. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
[2017] 1 S.C.R. 261, Supreme Court of India, 2017
Outcome: Appeal(s) allowed (Granted)
Segment: Ratio
[2017] 1 S.C.R. 261 
MEERA SANTOSH PAL AND ORS. 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
(Writ Petition (C)No. I 7 of2017) 
JANUARY 16, 2017 
· [S.A. BOBDE AND L. NAGESWARA RAO, JJ.] 
Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 ~ s.3(2)(i) -
Womans right to make reproductive choices and bodily integrity -
Writ petition seeking direction to the respondents to allow petitioner 
no. l to undergo medical termination of her pregnancy as she 
apprehended danger to her life, having discovered that .her foetus 
was diagnosed with Anencephaly, a defect that leaves foetal skull 
bones unformed and is both untreatable and certain to cause the 
infants death during or shor1ly after birth - Held: Report of the 
Medical Board clearly warrants the inference that continuance of 
the pregnancy involves ~Tsk to the life of petitioner no. l and a 
possible grave injury to her physical or mental health as required 
by s.3{4}(i) of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act -
Though, 
the pregnancy is into the 24'" week, having regard to the danger to 
the life and Jhe certain inability of the foetus to survive extra uterine 
life, it is appropriate in the interests ofjustice to permit petitioner 
no. l to undergo medical termination of her pregnancy under the 
provisions of Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act - The overriding 
consideration is that she has a right to take all such steps as 
necessary to preserve her own life ag(Jj!'st the avoidable danger to 
it, particularly since she has made an informed
choice - The exercise 
of her right' seems to be within the limits of reproductive autonomy -
Constitution of India - Arts. 21 & 32 - Personal liberty. 
Suchita 
Sriva~tava and Anr. 
v. 
Chandigarh 
Administration (2009) 9 SCC 1- referred to. 
Case Law Reference 
A 
13 
c 
D 
E 
F 
(2009) 9 SCC 1 
referred to 
Para 9 
G 
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (Civil) No. 
17 of2017. 
Under Article 32 of The Constitution of India. 
Colin Gonsalves, Sr. Adv., Ms. Sneha Mukherjee, Satya Mitra, 
H 
261
262 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] I S.C.R. 
Advs., with him for the Petitioners. 
Ranj it Kumar, SG. R. K. Rathore, Ms. Swaruprana Chaturvadi, 
G. S. Makker, Nishant Ramakantrao Katneshwarkar, Advs., with him 
for the Respondents. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered 
ORDER 
I. Petitioner- No. I - !Vleera Santosh Pal, is 22 years old, has 
approached this Court under Article 32 of the Constitution oflndia seeking 
directions to the respondents to allow her to undergo medical tennination 
of her pregnancy. She apprehended danger to her life, having discovered 
that her fetus was diagnosed with Anencephaly, a defect that leaves 
foetal skull bones unformed and is both untreatable and certain to cause 
the infant's death during or shortly after birth. This condition is also 
known to endanger the mother's life. 
2. By order dated 11.1.2017, 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 : 
l. Dr.Avinash N. Supe, Director(Medical Education & Major 
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 
4. Dr. Indrani Hemantkumar Chincholi, Professor and HOD, 
Anaesthesia, KEM Hospital 
5. Dr. Y.S. Nandanwar, Professor and HOD, Obstetrics, KEM 
Hospitals 
6. Dr. Anahita Chauhan, Professor and Unit Head, Obstetrics 
&
Gynecology, LTMMC and LTMG Hospitals 
7. Dr. HemanginiThakkar,Addl. Professor, Radiology, KEM 
Hospital. 
3. As on 12. I .2017, she was into her 24" week of pregnancy. 
This is also borne by the report dated 12. l.2017, received from the 
G 
Director (ME & MH)'s Office, Seth G.S. Medical College & KEM 
Hospital, Parel, Mumbai-400 012. 
4. By its report dated 12.1.2017, the Medical Board has examined 
petitioner no. I with specific ·reference to their special expertise for-
general, medical, radiological, psychiatric and anaesthetic evaluation. An 
obstetric evaluation was done by two Obstetricians. Ultrasonography 
H 
was performed at KEM Hospital on 12. l.2017 by the Additional
MEERA SANTOSH PAL ANO ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA AND 
ORS. 
Professor, Radiology. The said Board has further reported that obstetric 
examination shows 24 weeks pregnancy, external ballottement present, 
fetal parts not well felt with mild polyhydramnios. On internal examin~tion, 
the cervix is posterior and OS is closed. U ltrasonography d1agnos1s has 
revealed a single live fetus with anencephalywith mild polyhydramnios 
with hypotelorism. 
5. We have been informed that the fetus is without a skull and 
would, therefore, not be in a position to survive. It is also submitted that 
petitioner no.1 has undergone psychiatric evaluation. She is reported to 1 
be coherent, has average intelligence and with good comprehensiori. 
She understands that her fetus is abnormal and the risk of fetal mortality 
is high. She also has the support ofher.hus.t>and in her decision making. 
6. Upon evaluation of petitioner nb~l, the aforesaid Medical Board 
has concluded that her current pregnancy is of about 24 weeks. The 
condition of the fetus is not compatible with extra-uterine life. In other 
words, the fetus would not be able to survive outside the uterus. 
7. Importantly, it is reported that the continuation of pregnancy 
can gravely endanger the physical and mental health of petitioner no. I 
and the risk of her tennination of pregnancy is within acceptable limits 
with institutional back up. 
8. This Court, as at present being advised, would not enter into the 
medico-legal aspect of the
identity of the fetus but consider it appropriate 
to decide the matter from the standpoint of the right ofpetitionerno. l to 
preserve her life in view of the foreseeable danger to it, in case she 
allows the current pregnancy to run its full course. The medical evidence 
clearly suggests that there is no point in allowing the pregnancy to run its 
full course since the fetus would not be able to survive outside the uterus 
without a skull. 
9. In Suchita Srivastava and Anr. vs. Chandigarh Administration 
[(2009) 9 SCC I], a bench of three JLidges held "a woman's right to 
make reproductive choices is-also a dimension of 'personal liberty' as 
understood under Article 2·1 of the Constitution". The Court there dealt 
with the importance of the consent of the pregnant woman as an essential 
requirement for proceeding with the termination of pregnancy. The Court 
observed as follows:-
"22. There is no doubt that a woman's right to make reproductive 
choices is also a dimension of"personal liberty" as understood 
under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It is important to 
·recognise that reproductive choices can be exercised to procreate 
as well as to abstain from procreating. The crucial consideration 
is that a woman's rightto privacy, dignity and bodily integrity should 
be .respected. This means that there· should be. no restriction 
whatsoever on the exercise of reproductive choices such as a 
woman's right to refuse participation in sexual activity or 
263 
A 
B l
c 
0 
E 
F 
G 
H
264 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] l S.C.R. 
alternatively the insistence on use of contraceptive methods. 
Furthermore, women are also free to choose birth control methods 
such as undergoing sterilisation procedures. Taken to their logical 
conclusion, reproductive rights include a woman's entitlement to 
carry a pregnancy to its full term, to give birth and to subsequently 
raise children ..... " 
l 0. The crucial consideration in the present case is whether the 
right to bodily integrity calls for a permission to allow her to terminate 
her pregnancy. The report of the Medical Board clearly warrants the 
inference that the continuance of the pregnancy involves the risk to the 
life of the pregnant woman and a possible grave injury to her physical or 
mental health as required by Section 3 (2)(i)ofthe Medical Termination 
of Pregnancy Act, 1971. Though, the pregnancy is into the 24'h week, 
having regard to the danger to the life and the certain inability of the 
fetus to survive extra uterine life, we consider it appropriate to permit 
the petitioner to terminate the pregnancy. The overriding consideration 
is that she has a right to take all such steps as necessary to preserve her 
own life against the avoidable danger to it. 
l l. In these circumstances given the danger to her life,. there is no 
doubt that she has a right to protect and preserve her life and particularly 
since she has made an informed choice. The exercise of her right seems 
to
be within the limits ofreproductive autonomy. 
12. In the circumstances, we consider it appropriate in the interests 
of justice and particularly, to permit petitioner no. l to undergo medical 
tem1ination of her pregnancy under the provisions of Medical Tennination 
of Pregnancy Act, 197 l. The learned Solicitor General Mr. Ranjit Kumar 
who took notice on the last date of hearing has not opposed the petitioners 
prayer on any ground, legal or medical. We order accordingly. 
13. The termination of pregnancy of petitioner no. l will be 
perfonned by the Doctors of the hospital where she has undergone 
medical check-up. Further, termination of her pregnancy would be 
supervised by the above stated Medical Board who shall maintain complete 
record of the procedure which is t0 be performed on petitioner No. I for 
termination of her pregnancy. 
14. With the aforesaid directions, the instant writ petition is allowed 
in terms of prayer (a) seeking direction to the respondents to allow 
petitioner no. l to undergo medical termination of her pregnancy. 
15. Mr. Colin Gonsalves, learned Senior Counsel appearing for 
the petitioners, submits that the petitioners do not press other prayers in 
the instant writ petition. 
16. We take on record the aforesaid submission made by Mr. 
Gonsalves, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. 
H 
Bibhuti Bhushan Bose 
Petition allO\YCd.