Abortions based on ‘presumed’ mental health injury: HC seeks Centre opinion on plea challenging law

57-year-old petitioner challenges provision allowing gynaecologists to clear abortions on presumed anguish from failed contraception; court issues notice to Centre, next hearing on September 16.

Written by Manraj Grewal Sharma
Chandigarh | August 7, 2025 08:45 PM IST

3 min read

Punjab and Haryana High Court PIL, Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act 1971, MTP Act Section 3(2), MTP Act Explanation 1,

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has sought the Union government’s reply to a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by a 57-year-old Hisar resident challenging the legal provision that allows abortions based on presumed mental health injury without requiring evaluation by a psychiatrist.

Deepak Kumar, the petitioner, has sought a declaration that a key clause under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy (MTP) Act, 1971 — particularly Section 3(2) and Explanation 1 — is unconstitutional. He has contended that the provision violates Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution by allowing gynaecologists to terminate pregnancies on mental health grounds, even though they are not qualified to assess psychological conditions. He has also asked the court to rule that abortions should only be allowed when the life of the woman or the foetus is in immediate danger, not in cases of failed contraception or presumed mental anguish.

The PIL, filed through advocates Dr Pankaj Nanhera, Sanchar Anand, Nitin Verma, and Yogesh Vashista, came up for hearing on Wednesday before the division bench of Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sanjiv Berry. The bench issued notice to the Union government and fixed the next hearing for September 16.

What the law says

Section 3(2) of the MTP Act allows a registered medical practitioner to terminate a pregnancy if it risks the woman’s life or may cause “grave injury” to her physical or mental health. For pregnancies up to 20 weeks, the opinion of one doctor is sufficient; between 20 and 24 weeks, two doctors must concur for certain categories of women.

Explanation 1 to this section presumes that if a pregnancy results from the failure of contraceptive methods, the resulting mental anguish is automatically considered a grave mental health injury, making abortion legally permissible.

What the petition challenges

The PIL argues that:

Gynaecologists are not trained to assess mental health and should not be given the power to presume psychological harm.
Only psychiatrists can evaluate whether a woman is experiencing mental anguish severe enough to justify an abortion.
The automatic presumption that contraceptive failure causes grave mental injury is arbitrary and may lead to misuse of the law.
The law lacks clear definitions of what qualifies as “grave injury” to mental health, giving doctors unchecked discretion.

The petitioner contends that these provisions enable abortions in situations that fall outside the core intent of the MTP Act, and that such broad presumptions may undermine fetal rights and open doors to female foeticide.

What the petitioner wants

Among other reliefs, Deepak Kumar has requested the court to:

Story continues below this ad

Declare Section 3(2) and its Explanation 1 unconstitutional.
Clarify that “grave injury” to mental health should not include distress caused by unintended pregnancies due to failed contraception.
Limit the scope of legal abortions to life-threatening situations for the woman or fetus.

The court has admitted the petition and listed it for further hearing on September 16.

Stay updated with the latest - Click here to follow us on Instagram

Tags: